The court affirmed a conviction under the POCSO Act based on the credible testimony of the victim, emphasizing that the absence of corroboration does not question the conviction if the victim's account remains consistent and trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J

1. Heard Mr. Anish Tiwari along with Mr. Akash Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Saraipali, District Mahasmund C.G. in Special Sessions Case No. 04/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix’s father, submitted a written report to the Saraipali police station stating that prosecutrix aged about 11 years and having studied up to Class IV, was playing in front of her house on 10/12/2019 at about 12:00 noon and had disappeared. Despite repeated attempts to locate her, she was untraceable. Based on this report, Crime No. 379/2019 was registered at the Saraipali police station, and a First Information Report (Ex.P-18) was filed. During the investigation, a site map of the scene (Ex.P-7) was prepared. The victim's birth certificate was seized and a seizure memo (EX.P-6) was prepared. During investigation, prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant and a recovery panchnama (EX.P-1) was prepared.

4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents 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.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13.05.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. 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 the age of prosecutrix is not proved before the trial court and different date of birth is mentioned in the date of birth and the dahil kharij register which creates serious doubt. He further submits that though the ‘Birth Certificate’ has been seized but it has been issued after 6 years of birth, thus it cannot be taken into consideration as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of Chapter III of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as all the witness have narrated different versions of the same incident which shows glaring inconsistencies and contradictions that manifest on a bare reading of the evidence which were brushed aside by the Trail court and the impugned order was passed which needs to be set aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmal Premkumar and Another v State Rep. by Inspector of Police (2024 SCC OnLine SC 260) and the decision of this Court in the matter of Kundan Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine Chh 4363)

7. 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. He further submits that the prosecution has duly filed documentary evidence-date of birth of the victim, which is concrete piece of evidence to establish the fact that the victim at the time of incident was minor. The learned t