Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Ramesh Dewangan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 487 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shishir Dixit
For the Respondents: Shailendra Sharma

The testimony of a child sexual assault victim, if consistent and credible, suffices for conviction as a 'sterling' witness, and pursuant to the POCSO Act, once foundational facts are proven, the statutory presumption shifts the burden of rebuttal onto the accused.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 342, 376(3) - Conviction for sexual assault of a minor - Determination of age - School records, specifically the admission register, are primary and reliable evidence under Section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act, 2015 - Testimony of a child witness, if found reliable and consistent, can be the sole basis for conviction - Presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act shifts the burden to the accused once foundational facts are established.

Facts of the case:
On 30.06.2022, the appellant induced the minor victim under the pretext of marriage, confined her, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault. The victim returned home the following morning and disclosed the incident. A criminal case was registered, and the trial court convicted the appellant on multiple counts, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imprisonment under the POCSO Act.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the school records were sufficient to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The testimony of the victim was deemed 'sterling' and reliable, corroborated by medical and forensic FSL findings. The trial court's conviction was upheld.

Issues: The main issues were the determination of the victim's age at the time of the incident and whether the victim's testimony was sufficient for conviction in the absence of corroboration.

Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of a child victim, if consistent and credible, constitutes a 'sterling' witness whose version can sustain a conviction. Once the prosecution establishes foundational facts, the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act shifts the burden of proof to the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial conviction and background facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellate arguments regarding evidence reliability and age proof. (Para 7 , 8)
3. statutory rules for determining minor status of victims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. evidentiary assessment of witnesses and statutory presumptions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. principles for valuing testimony of child sterling witnesses. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
6. affirmation of conviction and dismissal of appeal. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

22.04.2026

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court Sujrapur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 42/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences as under:

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 363 of the IPC.	R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 06 months.
Under Section 366 of the IPC.	Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 01 year.
Under Section 376(3) of the IPC.	Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 year.
Under Section 342 of the IPC	Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months.
Under Section 6 of POCSO Act	Imprisonment for 20 years with fine amount of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the child victim lodged a written report (Ex.P/07) on 01.07.2022 at Police Outpost Basdei, Police Station Surajpur, against the accused. It was alleged therein that on 30.06.2022 at about 08:00 a.m., the child victim had gone to a nearby field for routine work, when the accused, on the pretext of marrying her, induced and took her to his house. It is further alleged that the accused wrongfully confined her and subjected her to repeated acts of sexual assault during the intervening period. On the morning of 01.07.2022, upon search being made by her family members, the child victim was traced and brought back home, whereupon she disclosed the incident to them, leading to the lodging of the report.

3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P/07), an unnumbered First Information Report (Ex.P/08) was initially registered at Police Outpost Basdei against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376(3), 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to Police Station Surajpur, where a numbered FIR bearing Crime No. 296/2022 was registered. Upon completion of investigation and arrest of the accused, charge-sheet No. 279/2022 came to be filed before the competent Court.

4. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused, namely Ramesh Dewangan, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded false implication, and stated that he would adduce evidence in defence. However, no evidence was led on behalf of the defence.

6. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JRamesh Dewangan – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 487 of 2024

The testimony of a child sexual assault victim, if consistent and credible, suffices for conviction as a 'sterling' witness, and pursuant to the POCSO Act, once foundational facts are proven, the statutory presumption shifts the burden of rebuttal onto the accused.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Ramesh Dewangan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 487 of 2024