Ramakant @ Tingu Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2015 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 462/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶19

2 / 8

¶20

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶21

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 354 of the IPC	R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.
U/s 12 of the POCSO Act	R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation.

¶22

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶23

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a report in the Sipat Police Station to the effect that on 29/09/2014, while she was going to school, accused Tingu Sahu and his friend met her on the way. Tingu Sahu caught hold her right hand and his friend hold her left hand. Tingu Sahu said to her that he loves her, then she shook off his hand and ran away to her home. After reaching home, she informed her mother about the incident, who, in turn, informed her father about the incident over the phone. On the basis of the report, a crime was registered against the accused under Section 354 of the IPC & Section 8 of the POCSO Act and investigation was taken up.

¶24

During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was got prepared. The Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Upon completion thereof, chargesheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

¶25

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 05

¶26

3 / 8

¶27

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶28

witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶29

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30/12/2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that victim is a child witness, thus, not to be believed in the absence of corroboration and prosecution story is filled with doubts, benefit whereof should be extended to the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and without there being any evidence with regard to the age of the Victim, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that age of the victim being under 18 years, which is otherwise remains unchallenged during entire cross-examination, stands proved. He would further submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrant no

¶32

4 / 8

¶33

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶34

interference of this court.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well.

¶36

The first question for consideration would be that whether the victim was minor on the date of incident or not.

¶37

PW/3 – father of the victim has stated in his statement that date of birth of his daughter is 14/09/2002. The Progress Report of Class 6^th of the victim was seized as Article- A/1 also shows that the date of birth of the victim is 14/09/2002 which is duly issued from the Middle School, Kudurmal, District Korba wherein the victim used to get her academics.

¶38

Therefore, for want of challenge and proved materials available on record, I do not have any hesitation in holding that the victim on the date of incident being below the age of 18 years, is 'child' within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.

¶39

The next question for consideration would come, whether the appellant committed such offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶40

The victim was examined as PW/2. She stated in her statement that on 29.09.2014, at about 9 a.m., she was going to school as soon as she came out of the house, the accused put a handkerchief in her mouth and said, "I love you." she freed her hand and went home and told to her Mom about the incident. In cross-examination, the victim stated that she was

¶41

5 / 8

¶42

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶43

not aware that there is a dispute between her father and the father of the accused over the demand of Rs. 60,000/-. She further stated that it is wrong to say that no incident happened with her. She also stated that she had not given the statement as told by her father. It is correct to say that the accused lives near my house where his father, brother and sister-inlaw live. She herself stated in her cross-examination that a cloth was tied around her mouth.

¶44

If the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her/his evidence.

¶45

It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the court.

¶46

In cases under the POCSO Act, a ‘sterling’ witness refers to a witness whose testimony is of high quality on caliber to the extent that the Court can accept their version of events without requiring additional corroboration. The Supreme Court in ‘n’ numbers of cases, has observed that the testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction, if it is trustworthy and of sterling quality.

¶47

The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-

¶48

6 / 8

¶49

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶50

“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 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

¶51

7 / 8

¶52

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶53

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 recise, 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 offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”

¶54

Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgment and after perusing the evidence available on record, it stands established on record beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to the victim, intending to outrage her modesty knowing that it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. Victim/PW-2 has categorically assigned role to the accused in commission of said offence against her. Age of the victim has been determined to be less than 18 years. Therefore, having aforesaid materials on record, compels us to hold that prosecution has proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, that on the date of incident, the accused knowingly assaulted or used criminal force

¶55

8 / 8

¶56

CRA No. 38 of 2016

¶57

to the victim, intending to outrage her modesty. Hence the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire facts of the case and convicted the accused under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶58

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, 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 sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶59

The accused is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. 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.

¶60

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶63

Judge

¶64

$. Bhilwar/ Gowri

Ramakant @ Tingu Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant @ Tingu Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Thadani @ Junaid Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Santram @ Chhotu Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pappu Singh Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Ram Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajit Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh