Accurate Account Of Incident Not Necessarily Needed From Sexual Offence Victim, Emphasis Is On Providing Version Based On Her Recollection Of Events: Chhattisgarh High Court
While maintaining the conviction of a man in a POCSO case, the Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident when considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events.
The criminal appeal before the High Court arose out of a judgment of conviction in a case registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 9 (m)(u) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha said, “When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual 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.
The Court also emphasized, “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.”
Advocate Palash Agrawal represented the Appellant while Panel Lawyer Shubha Shrivastava represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2021 when the mother of the victim made a written complaint alleging that her daughter was 2 years and 10 months old when she was lured by the accused with biscuits and chocolates. In the evening, a neighbour brought the victim home in his arms and informed that he saw the accused removing his and the victim’s clothes. It was alleged that the accused attempted to do something inappropriate with the victim by removing her clothes. The incident was then reported to her husband and other villagers. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 363, 354(A)(B) of the IPC and Sections 7,8, 9(D)(P),10, and 11(iv),12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, noted that the age of the victim on the date of the commission of the offence was admittedly 2 years 10 months & 10 days. The Bench explained that when considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual 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.
The Bench said, “It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the appellant can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault 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 victim if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the appellant and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance.”
The Bench noticed that PW-1, the eyewitness, is the Grandfather of the victim who had deposed that he knew the accused, who is a resident of his village, Dhoda. He had stated that when he was heading towards the cowshed to tie up the cows, he saw that the accused had his pants partially lowered, and the victim’s clothes were also lowered from the bottom. He then picked up the victim and took her to her mother’s house. The victim’s mother also stated that their neighbour, brought her daughter home in his arms and told her father-in-law that he saw the accused removing his and her daughter’s clothes near the cowshed.
Considering the materials on record, the statement of PW-1 who was an eye-witness as well as the statement of the mother of the victim and the statement of the Inspector, the Bench held that the Special Judge had rightly convicted the appellant. Dismissing the Appeal, the Bench ordered, “The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.”
Cause Title: Rohit Kalar v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:22874)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Palash Agrawal
Respondent: Panel Lawyer Shubha Shrivastava
