Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.20 17:27:57 +0530 2025:CGHC:26103-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1485 of 2021 Sanjay Kaachi (Patel) S/o Santosh Kaachi Aged About 22 Years R/o Adarsh Mohalla, Jairam Nagar, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyamta Prasad and Mr. Gorelal Tondon, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 20.06.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd F.T.S.C., Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur in Special Crime Case (POCSO Act) No. 131/2019, whereby the appellant has 2 been convicted for offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as ‘POSCO’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24/09/2019 the grandmother of the victim lodged a report at the Police Station Masturi to the effect that she is a resident of Jayaramnagar Bhanesar, Narwa Mohalla, Ward No. 01 and does domestic work. The victim has studied till class VIII and does household work. On 23/09/2019 at around 3-4 PM, she went to work at a Bada Bhajiya shop with her aunt and did not return home till evening. When she went to her aunt's house and enquired, she was told that she had left saying she was going home after closing the shop. When the victim did not return home, they made enquiries here and there and could not find her anywhere. At around 12:30 in the night, her grand-daughter came home and told that she was coming home after closing the shop, at the same time, around 9-10 PM, Sanjay Kachhi, a boy from Jayaramnagar, forcibly caught her and took her to the bathroom behind Jayaramnagar, removed her leggings and panties and inserted his penis in her private part and her leggings and hair buckle were left there, she somehow ran away from there, then she came to the police station with her grand- daughter to lodge a report. Inspector I. Tirkey registered a crime against the accused under section 376 of the IPC and section 4 of 3
Facts
the POCSO Act under Crime No. 377/2019 and filed a First Information Report. Statements of witnesses were recorded in the case. After complete investigation, when the crime was found against the accused, the charge-sheet was presented in the Court for trial on 22/11/2019. 3.
Legal Reasoning
As prima facie evidence of the commission of offences against the accused under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was found, charges were framed under the said sections. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-23). The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2021 awarded by the trial Court is bad in law, perverse, thus liable to be set aside. From the perusal of statement of the victim, its prima facie appears that she is under the pressure of the parents/guardian and her statement is recorded in the court is also in the presence 4 of the parents/guardian of the prosecutrix therefore she has given the statement against the appellant. The F.I.R. has not been proved by the prosecutrix and her grandmother themselves. It is to say and submit that there are contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecutrix in respect to allegations made in the F.I.R. Medical report does not corroborate the version of the prosecutrix, it is to say and submitted that as per statement and report given by the P.W.-1 Dr. Parul Jogi, there is no any injury caused to the victim in whole body. In the instant case prosecution has not been any independent eye witness. The age of the prosecutrix is not proved by the prosecution accordance with the law. For proving the age of the prosecutrix only the school admission certificate has been produced by the police, there is no any birth certificate. Prosecution has not proved the case under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012. The learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecutrix (PW-13) is less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. The learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecutrix (P.W.-13) is less than 18 years of age on the date of incident and ought to have considered that the prosecutrix (PW- 13) has not proved the age of the victim is less than 18 years. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. The conviction is based on uncorroborated testimony of the witness. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and came into 5 erroneous conclusion while passing the judgment of conviction which is liable to be set aside. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. The conviction is based on uncorroborated testimony of the witness. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and came into erroneous conclusion while passing the judgment of conviction which is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecutrix (PW-13) has clearly deposed the conduct of the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and in the Court statement and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in 6 cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 10. The next issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the age of the victim on the date of commission of the offence concerned, was below 18 years of age. 11. Regarding the age of the victim, Investigating officer I. Tirkey (P.W.-20) had deposed that he had seized the primary education completion certificate and the document of the last assessment result of secondary school (Class-VIII) of the victim from the grandmother of the victim which is Ex.P-18, which is supported by the statement of mother of the victim (PW-12), witness Subhash Patle (PW-17) and is being corroborated by the statement of the grandmother of the victim (PW-14) and the document i.e., certified copy of Primary Education Completion Certificate (Article 'B') and certified copy of Final Assessment Examination Result (Class-VIII) (Article 'C'). 12. Investigating officer Faizul Hoda Shah (PW-16) deposed that he had seized the Dakhil Kharij register related to the victim from the Head-Mistress of Government Advanced Primary School, Mandi Mohalla Bhanesar, Mrs. Silbiya Minj (PW-05) as per seizure sheet 7 (Ex.P-9), which is confirmed by the statement of Head-Mistress Mrs. Silbiya Minj (PW-5), Assistant Teacher Anil Kumar Pal (PW- 6), Assistant Teacher Deepak Kumar Malu (PW-6) and the certified copy of Dakhil Kharij (Article 'A'). 13. In this connection, the prosecution witness, Smt. Silbiya Minj (PW- 5),Head-Mistress of Government Advanced Primary School, Mandi Mohalla Bhanesar has stated that she had received a letter from Masturi police as per Ex.P-8 demanding the Dakhal Kharij register for the information of the victim's date of birth and the Dakhal Kharij register was seized from her as per Ex.P-9. The victim's date of birth is mentioned as 12/02/2006 in serial number 352 of page number 65 of the Dakhal Kharij register. The witness has stated that the certified copy of the said register is Article 'A' On observing 'A', 'B' and 'C', the date of birth of the victim (PW-13) is mentioned as 12/02/2006. The incident is of 23/09/2019. The victim was admitted in class I in Government Advanced Primary School Mandi Mohalla Bhanesar on 08/07/2011 and as per the verified copy of the admission register, the entry related to the victim was made in the year 2011. 14. As per above, the certified copy of Dakhil Kharij Register in Article 'A' mentions the date of birth of the victim (PW-13) as 12/02/2006. On the date of incident i.e. 23/09/2019, the age of the victim was 13 years, 07 months, 11 days as per her date of birth i.e. 8 12/02/2006 i.e. the age of the victim (PW-13) was less than 18 years. As per the provision mentioned in Section 94 (2) (i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the certified copy of Dakhil Kharij Register in Article 'A' mentions the date of birth of the victim as 12/02/2006, which will be considered correct. The above document is a document maintained in the normal course by the school in which the victim (PW-13) studied and since the said document has been maintained by public servants, it falls in the category of public document, on which there is no reason to disbelieve. It is proved by oral and documentary evidence that the victim (PW-13) falls in the category of child as defined under the Protection of Children Act on the date of incident 23/09/2019. 15. I.Tirkey (PW-20), the then Inspector/Police Station In-charge Masturi, has stated that during his posting at Police Station Masturi, on 24/09/2019, on the report of the complainant/victim's grandmother, as per her statement, the First Information Report (Ex.P-21) was filed. 16. In this connection, the prosecution witness (PW-14) who is the grandmother of the victim states that on asking the victim, she told that the accused Sanjay Kachhi took her behind the building by pressing her mouth and did a wrong thing (rape) with her, then she took the victim to the police station Masturi and got the report registered, which is confirmed by the statement of I. Tirkey (PW- 9 20), the then Inspector / Station Incharge Masturi. From the observation of the First Information Report (Ex.P-21), it is shown that the grandmother of the victim (PW-14) lodged a report regarding the accused Sanjay Kachhi forcefully holding the victim and taking her to the bathroom behind Jayaramnagar, removing her leggings and panties and inserting his penis into the private parts of the victim. 17. Inspector Anju Chelak (PW-4) of women police station Bilaspur has stated that she had received a letter (Ex.P-10) from the station in-charge Masturi for recording the statement of the victim in Crime Case No. 377/2019 of police station Masturi, on the basis of which, she had recorded the statement of the victim as per her instructions. Another witness S.P. Shukla (PW-4) Patwari Halka No. 27 has stated that a letter (Ex.P-5) was received from the station in-charge Masturi to the Tehsildar Masturi for preparing and providing the site map of incident. On the basis of Ex.P-5, as per the order of the Tehsildar Masturi, he went to the scene of incident and prepared the site map (Ex.P-6) as per the instructions of the victim and prepared the Panchnama (Ex.P-7). 18. The victim (PW-13) states that she knows the accused, he is a resident of Jayaram Nagar. On the date of the incident, she had gone with her aunt to sell Bada Bhajiya in the weekly market of Jayaram Nagar. The shop was closed at around 08:00 pm. She had gone behind the wood depot of the saw machine located in 10 Jayaram Nagar to urinate, at that time, the accused came and forcibly took her behind the Musafir Bhawan by pressing her mouth and took off his clothes and took off the clothes she was wearing and did bad things with her. After getting rid of the accused, she ran to her house. She told her parents, aunt, grandmother and neighbors about the incident. Her buckle and slacks (cloth like pants) were left at the place where the accused did bad things with her and the garland and bangles worn by the accused were missing. 19. Prosecution witness (PW-14) who is the grandmother of the victim states that on the date of the incident, there was a weekly market in Jayaram Nagar. Her granddaughter victim had gone with her aunt to sell 'Bada Bhajiya' in the weekly market in Jayaram Nagar. When her granddaughter victim did not return home till 8:30 in the night, they went to her aunt and asked her about the victim, she told that she had sent the victim home and she had left to go home. They searched for the victim here and there and also in the weekly market but the victim was not found, then her son called the police on 112, on which 112 police came, after 10-15 minutes, her granddaughter victim came running from the market, panting. On asking the victim, she told that the accused Sanjay Kachhi took her behind the building by pressing her mouth and did a wrong thing (rape) with her. 20. Prosecution witness (PW-12) who is the mother of the victim 11 states that her sister-in-law makes and sells Bada Bhajiya in the weekly market Jairam Nagar and on the date of the incident her daughter/ victim had gone to the weekly market Jairam Nagar with her aunt. Her daughter victim did not return from the weekly market till 08 O'clock in the night, then she asked the victim's aunt, then her aunt said that she did not know, then they searched for their daughter/victim. At about 12:30, her daughter/victim came home gasping and crying. 21. Prosecution witness (PW-15) who is the father of the victim has stated that on the date of incident 23/09/2019, his daughter victim had gone with his sister to sell 'Vada Bhajiya' in the market of Jairam Nagar. When his daughter victim did not return home till 08:30 pm, they went to the victim's aunt and asked about the victim, she told that she had sent the victim home and the victim had left to go home. They searched for the victim everywhere, it was 12:30 by the time they searched but the victim was not found. At 12:30, his daughter victim came home crying. On asking the victim, she told that the accused Sanjay Kachhi took her to the bathroom behind the building by pressing her mouth and did a wrong thing (rape) with her. 22. Prosecution witness Subhash Patle (PW-17) stated that he knows the accused and the victim. The incident is of 23/09/2019. Her aunt who had gone to the weekly market with the victim to sell 12 Bada Bhajiya returned home very late at night, then the victim went to her house. When the victim was not with her, her mother asked her aunt where the victim was, the aunt told her mother that she had returned home a long time ago and she did not know where the victim was. When the victim was not found, they went to the market and searched for her but she was not found. Then the victim came home at night. When they asked the victim about the incident, she was very scared and she told that she had gone to the marriage hall located near the market to urinate, then the accused Sanjay Patel took her to the bathroom by gagging her mouth and raped her. The victim also told that the accused kept her in the same building for a long time and the accused was inebriated, thereafter she ran away. 23. Investigating Officer I. Tirkey (PW-20) stated that he had sent letter (Ex.P-15) regarding assistance for private part examination of the victim. Which is confirmed by the statement of the victim. The victim was sent to CHC Masturi for examination by filling up the examination form (Ex.P-1), which is confirmed by the statement of lady constable Preeti Sharma (PW-18). In this regard, the statement of prosecution witness Preeti Sharma (PW- 18), lady constable, police station Masturi is that she had received examination form (Ex.P-1) regarding examination of the victim, on which she took the victim to CHC Masturi where the victim was examined by the doctor, which is confirmed by the statement of Dr. Parul Jogi (PW-1) and the examination report (Ex.P-1). 24. Dr. Parul Jogi (PW-1), Medical Officer stated that the victim was 13 brought before her for physical examination by lady constable Preeti Sharma of Masturi police station. She conducted physical examination of the victim and gave the report (Ex.P-1). After examination, she made two vaginal slides which were sealed and handed over to the lady constable. The lady constable presented a dark brown colored ladies cotton underwear in a sealed packet for examination, which she examined and sealed and gave the said underwear to the lady constable. According to her, the victim was not used to sexual intercourse. No definite opinion has been given regarding the immediate sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim was about 13 years old, whom she referred to the radiologist of District Hospital Bilaspur for age determination. 25. So far as the alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, than only in a given case the court has to draw adverse inference. 26. The statement of the Investigating Officer I. Tirkey (PW-20) is that he had sent the accused to CHC Masturi for examination by filling the examination form (Ex.P.2-A), which is confirmed by the statement of constable C201 Harprasad Sahu (PW-19). In this regard, prosecution witness Harprasad Sahu (PW-19), Constable 14 C-201 of Masturi police station, has stated that he had gone to CHC Masturi with the treatment letter for the treatment of the accused, which is confirmed by the statement of Dr. Mahendra Kumar Madhukar (PW-2) and the examination report (Ex.P-2). 27. Prosecution witness Dr. Mahendra Kumar Madhukar (PW-2) stated that the accused was brought before him for physical examination by constable 201 Har Prasad Sahu of Masturi police station. He conducted the physical examination of the accused and gave the report (Ex.P-2). According to him, the accused is capable of having sexual intercourse. He had examined the underwear of the accused. After examination, he found a white stain which he had circled in blue ink, sealed and given to the same constable. 28. Investigating officer I. Tirkey (PW-20) has stated that he had prepared seizure sheet (Ex.P-19) by seizing the victim's panty in a sealed packet and two vaginal slides in another sealed packet from woman constable Preeti Sharma and had prepared seizure sheet (Ex.P-20) by seizing the accused's underwear in a sealed packet from constable Harprasad Sahu. 29. Prosecution witness Yogendra Kumar Khunte (PW-3) stated that as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, he had taken three sealed packets to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur for chemical test given to him by the Officer- in-Charge, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, which 15 was confirmed by the statement of the investigating officer Faizud Hoda Shah (PW-16) and the FSL report. 30. Investigating officer Faizul Hoda Shah (PW-20) states that he had sent the seized material to the office of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur for chemical examination. The FSL report received is Ex.P-23, in which, it is reported that semen stains and human sperms were found in A, B, C. According to the FSL report Ex.P-23, semen stains and human sperms were found in the alleged slide of the victim which has been marked with A, the alleged panties of the victim which has been marked with B and the alleged panties of the accused which has been marked with C, which have semen stains and human sperms in A, B, C, which confirms that the victim (PW-13) was raped. 31. Investigating officer I. Tirkey (PW-20) stated that he had gone to the scene of crime and seized used brown colour torn leggings, a black coloured plastic hair buckle and an iron locket tied in a black thread on one side of which, there was a picture of Bajrangbali and on the other side there was a picture of Shankar and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-12) which has been supported by the seizure witness victim's grandmother (PW-12). He arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P-22) and he went to the scene of crime and prepared a visual map of the scene (Ex.P- 16) which has been supported by the victim (PW-13). She had sent letter (Ex.P-10) to the Mahila Police Station Incharge, Mahila 16 Police Station, Bilaspur regarding recording of the statement of the victim and letter (Ex.P-23) to JMFC Bilaspur for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.. 32. As per above, the victim (PW-13) has stated that on the date of incident, her mouth was pressed and she was raped forcefully, which has been supported by the victim's mother, victim's father, victim's grandmother and witness Subhash Patle. The victim has stated that she was medically examined, which has been supported by the victim's parents and grandmother and which is confirmed by the statement of Dr. Parul Jogi and the examination report (Ex.P-1). In the chemical test, the presence of human sperm has been found in the accused's underwear, victim's slide and underwear. Thus, the evidence presented by the prosecution proves that the accused committed rape on the victim. 33. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant 17 would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the 18 offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 34. In the matter of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 291, in paras 14 and 20, it is observed as under: “14. At the very outset, it has to be stated with authority that the Pocso Act is a gender legislation. This Act has been divided into various chapters and parts therein. Chapter II of the Act titled “Sexual Offences Against Children” is segregated into five parts. Part A of the said Chapter contains two sections, namely, Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3 defines the offence of “Penetrative Sexual Assault” whereas Section 4 lays down the punishment for the said offence. Likewise, Part B of the said Chapter titled “Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault and Punishment therefor” contains two sections, namely, Section 5 and Section 6. The various subsections of Section 5 copiously deal with various situations, circumstances and categories of persons where the offence of penetrative sexual assault would take the character of the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Section 5(k), in particular, while laying emphasis on the mental stability of a child stipulates that where an offender commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, by taking advantage of the child's mental or physical disability, it shall amount to an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.” “20. Speaking about the child, a three Judge Bench in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 756 “1. … 19 “child is the father of man”. To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He must receive education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man who matters so far as the society is concerned.” 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on 8.2.2022 has held as under:- “10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even 20 innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.” 36. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual 21 offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:“ “21. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice.” 37. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as follows: 22 “17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 38. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under : “12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6,on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless 23 there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the High Court, there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.” 39. On the basis of analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that at the time of the incident, the victim was only 13 years, 07 months, 11 days old and is a minor below 16 years of age. It is proved that the victim is a girl child and that the accused, knowing that the victim was a girl child below 12 years of age at the time of the incident, grabbed her forcibly and committed the crime of rape, forcible penetration, sexual assault and rape on the girl/victim below 16 years of age. Thus, the said crime of rape, penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl below 16 years of age by the accused falls under the category of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 40. Lastly, considering the statement of the victim (PW-20), who was 24 minor at the time of the incident and has specifically stated the act of the present appellant, statement of her grandmother (PW-14), statement of her mother (PW-12), statement of her father (PW- 15), statement of her brother (PW-17), Smt. Silbiya Minj, Head- Mistress (PW-5) and further considering the statement of the prosecutrix and FSL report (Ex.P-23) in which on articles A, B & C i.e. slide of prosecutrix, underwear of prosecutrix and underwear of the accused, respectively, stains of semen and human sperm were found, the material available on record and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. We do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 41. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 42. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 43. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the 25 concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet