Rajkumar Mali 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 07.03.2018 passed in Special Criminal POCSO Case No. 225/2016 by the learned Special Judge (POSCO) Raipur, C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶18

2 / 8

¶19

Conviction	*CRA No. 487 of 2018* Sentence
U/s 8 of the Protection of	R. I. For 3 years & fine of
Children from Sexual	Rupees 2,000/- in default of
Offences Act, 2012	payment of fine 1 month R.I.

¶20

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.09.2016, when the daughter of the complainant went to the shop of the appellant for purchase of ice cream, the appellant outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix by pressing her chest. Thereafter, a written complaint dated 18.09.2016 was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix in the P.S. Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.).

¶21

On the basis of the said report, offence was registered against the appellant. Statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed the charges under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. To prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and as many as 11 documents has been exhibited. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶22

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 07.03.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that

¶24

3 / 8

¶25

CRA No. 487 of 2018

¶26

appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record. Further, there is no conclusive evidence available on record which shows that at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act is not sustainable. He further submits that the place of the incident is a shop, which comes under the public place and at the time of the incident so many other people where also present and none have seen the incident raises a doubt. Further, none of the persons present at the time of the incident have been examined which raises serious doubt about the happening of the incident. Further, the independent witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the appellant has scolded the prosecutrix as she was playing with the freezer and in retaliation the present case has been filed against the appellant.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

Now, the first question for consideration would be what was the age of the prosecutrix (PW1) at the time of alleged incident?

¶30

4 / 8

¶31

CRA No. 487 of 2018

¶32

The prosecutrix (PW1) in her statement has deposed that at the time of incident, her age was 13 years and her date of birth is 13.05.2003. The above statement of this witness is not duly rebutted during her cross-examination. Father (PW-2) of the prosecutrix has also supported the above statement of her daughter and has categorically stated that his daughter is of 13 years. Further, Santosh Sharma (PW-3) stated that he is Accountant in Scholar English Medium School, Civil Line and deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 30.05.2003 according to the dakil kharij register. Further, mark sheet of Class 7^th has also been seized as Article ‘A-C’ in which also the date of birth is mentioned as 30.05.2003. Thus, looking to the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, the Trial Court rightly arrived on the conclusion that at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. I hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the Trial Court which is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record.

¶33

With regard to the alleged incident, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically stated that at around 3:00-4:00 in the afternoon, she went to a daily needs shop named Sunny located at Bottle House Kailash Residency, Geetanjali Nagar Raipur to buy some items. While returning she went to the accused's ice cream shop near the restaurant to buy ice cream. When she was choosing which ice cream to buy, the accused pressed her chest twice. Thereafter, she came out of the shop saying that she will tell her

¶34

5 / 8

¶35

CRA No. 487 of 2018

¶36

father and will complain to the police. After coming home, she told her father and sister about the molestation.

¶37

In her cross examination she has denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident other people were present at the shop.

¶38

PW-2 father of the prosecutrix stated that the prosecutrix came home crying and when asked she told him about the incident.

¶39

From the statement of the prosecutrix, it is evident that as there was no one in the shop, taking advantage of the situation, the appellant molested the prosecutrix. Further as 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

6 / 8

¶43

CRA No. 487 of 2018

¶44

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

¶45

“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

¶46

7 / 8

¶47

CRA No. 487 of 2018

¶48

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 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.”

¶49

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record and further considering the fact that there is no motive or rivalry between the parties to falsely implicate the appellant, this Court

¶50

8 / 8

¶51

CRA No. 487 of 2018

¶52

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 .

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶57

Jyoti

Rajkumar Mali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Mali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Thonukunuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Lal Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Premlal Verma @ Premlal Lodhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Gangwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Gangwani (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagbandhu Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh