The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed that when the testimonies of the victim and key witnesses are riddled with material contradictions and lack inherent reliability, conviction under Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354C of IPC cannot be sustained. The decision upholds established Supreme Court precedent requiring strict scrutiny and reliability of testimony and serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh, providing clear guidance for future cases involving alleged sexual offences against children.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/33/2022 of SOURABH GENDLE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010006062022 |
| Date of Registration | 06-01-2022 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh High Court jurisdiction; persuasive for other courts. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Indian Penal Code |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can be based solely on the testimony of a victim of sexual offence under POCSO/IPC when the statements of the key witnesses, including the victim, suffer from material contradictions and inconsistencies. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court found that conviction cannot be sustained when the statements of the victim and other key prosecution witnesses are riddled with material contradictions and lack inherent reliability. Serious contradictions emerged concerning the time and nature of the incident, the conduct of the witnesses, and allegations made. Relying upon Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that while conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the victim, the witness must be sterling and trustworthy, and material discrepancies in statements fatally weaken the prosecution’s case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Nirmal Premkumar vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police {AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 382} |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court cited binding Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing that, while the sole testimony of a victim may suffice for conviction in sexual offences, such evidence must withstand strict scrutiny and be free from material contradictions. If testimony is inconsistent, conviction is untenable. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
An FIR was registered after a minor girl (PW-4), aged about 12 years, alleged that the appellant peeped into the public toilet while she was inside and later abused her. Her mother and elder sister claimed further abuse and assault when confronting the appellant. The appellant denied all allegations, claiming a family dispute and false implication. During trial, significant contradictions surfaced between the statements of the victim, her sister, and mother regarding key aspects of the incident. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Nirmal Premkumar vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police {AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 382} |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and key witnesses defeat the prosecution’s case even in POCSO matters.
- Strict scrutiny of evidence is required; the testimony must be that of a “sterling” witness to convict solely on the basis of victim’s statements.
- Provides clear authority that mere allegations, without reliable and consistent testimony, cannot result in conviction under sexual offence statutes.
- Lawyers can cite this precedent to challenge convictions where prosecution evidence is inconsistent or untrustworthy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the testimony of the victim, her mother, and elder sister and found serious and material contradictions among them regarding the timing, participants, and nature of alleged acts.
- The trial court’s reliance on these inconsistent statements was set aside, as the contradictions eroded the credibility of the prosecution case.
- The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nirmal Premkumar vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police {AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 382}, reiterating that conviction can rest on the sole evidence of the victim only if the testimony is unimpeachable and credible.
- The Court emphasized that, while it is possible to convict based solely on the victim’s testimony, it must meet the standard of a ‘sterling witness’ as established by the Supreme Court.
- Since the evidence produced by the prosecution was marred by inconsistencies, the benefit of doubt was given, and conviction was set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Pointed to serious contradictions and variations in the testimony of the victim, her mother, and her elder sister.
- Contended that unreliable and contradictory witnesses cannot be relied upon for conviction.
- Submitted that the trial court unjustly convicted the appellant by ignoring these inconsistencies.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that the trial court’s judgment was well-merited and required no interference.
Factual Background
The mother of a 12-year-old girl lodged an FIR alleging that the appellant had peeped inside a public toilet while her minor daughter was using it and subsequently abused her. After the incident was narrated to family members, further confrontation led to allegations of abuse and assault by the appellant on other family members. The appellant denied the charges, claiming a family dispute and false implication. The prosecution case relied mainly on the statements of the victim, her mother, and sister, but significant contradictions emerged during trial.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (pertaining to sexual harassment and punishment thereof).
- Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code (voyeurism).
- The judgment interprets that, despite the legal provision for conviction on the sole testimony of the victim, such testimony must be unimpeachable and entirely reliable per Supreme Court precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment notes that the bail bonds of the acquitted appellant will remain in operation for six months in accordance with Section 437-A of CrPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and follows established Supreme Court precedent regarding the evidentiary standard for sustaining conviction under sexual offence statutes.