Subodh Tirki vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4474 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Subodh Tirki vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2025

                                                            1

                                                                              CRA No. 654 of 2016




       Digitally
       signed by
       SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
                                                                             2025:CGHC:47473
ANWAR Date:
       2025.09.22
       10:42:16
       +0530




                                                                                            NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                 CRA No. 654 of 2016

                    Subodh Tirki S/o Late Athnash Tirki Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
                    Madhguri Aamatoli, Police Station Kusmi, Revenue And Civil District
                    Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Akshar The School, Sanjay Nagar,
                    Police Station Jai Nagar, Revenue And Civil District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.,
                    Chhattisgarh
                                                                                         ... Appellant
                                                         versus
                    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jainagar, Revenue And Civil
                    District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
                                                                                       ... Respondent

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 16/09/2025

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is

against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

18.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 73/2015 by the learned First

Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G., whereby

the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

                 Conviction                           Sentence

          U/s 377 r/w Section        R.I. for three year and fine of Rs.
          511 of IPC/ U/s 8 of
                                     1,000/-, with default stipulation.
          the POCSO Act

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/victim (PW-1),

a 7th class student at Akshar School studied at hostel. On 27/06/2015, he

had dinner at 9:30 p.m. and went to sleep in his bed. At 11:30 P.M., he

was awakened by sound of a boy sleeping with him. He saw that his

school teacher i.e. the appellant herein, was lying in his bed. The accused

unzipped his pants, took out his private part and held it in his right hand,

make him masturbating. After a while, the accused attempted to insert

his private part into the victim's mouth. He pushed him away then the

accused left. The victim's friend (PW-4) saw the accused leaving. On

29/06/2015, the victim informed her father and uncle about the incident

and lodged a report at the Jaynagar Police Station. Based on this report,

Jaynagar Police Station registered an FIR bearing Crime No.110/15

against the accused and initiated the investigation. During the

investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. The Accused was

apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was

recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate. Upon

completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After

framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read

out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and

demanded trial.

3. During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was got prepared. The

Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the

victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial

Magistrate. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted

accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the

charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied

committing the crime and demanded trial.

4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 07

witnesses 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 18/03/2016 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 conviction

cannot be based on conjunction and surmises. He submits that victim is a

child witness, thus, not to be believed in the absence of corroboration

and prosecution story is filled with doubts, and benefit should be

extended to the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would

submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not

supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt

and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the

appellant is bad in the eyes of law.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrants no interference of this

court.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and also went through the original

records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and

carefully as well.

9. The first question for consideration would be that whether the victim was

minor on the date of incident or not.

10. In relation to the above question, it is important to consider the testimony

of the victim (PW-1), Chandrabhan (PW-2), and Sub-Inspector Sunil

Tiwari (PW-5).

11. The victim has stated in his evidence that his present age is to be 13

years and his year of birth to be 2002, and Chandrabhan Gupta PW-2,

father of victim has stated the date of birth of the victim is 01.09.2002.

Thus, on the basis of the said date of birth, at the time of incident, the

age of victim was less than 18 years.

12. Sub-Inspector Sunil Tiwari PW-5 has stated in his evidence that the

victim's birth certificate and school progress report, Article A-1 (issued

by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the office of Gram Panchayat Padauli)

and A-2 respectively, have been attached to the case and from the

observation of the victim's birth certificate and school progress report,

Article A-1 and A-2, attached to the record, in the birth certificate Article

A-1, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 01.09.2002 and from

the observation of the progress report Article A-2, the date of birth of the

victim is mentioned as 01.09.2002.

13. The above document has not been disputed at any stage during cross-

examination. Hence, it is proved that on the date of incident i.e.

27.06.2015, the age of the victim was approximately 12 years 09 months

26 days, which is less than 18 years.

14. The next question for consideration would come, whether the appellant

committed such offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC &

Section 8 of POCSO Act.

15. The victim (PW-1) stated in his evidence that he knew the accused,

Subodh Tirki. The incident occurred in the month of June, 2015. He was

a 7th Class student living in the hostel of Akshar School in Sanjaynagar.

On 27/06/2015, at around 10:00 p.m., after dinner, he went to his hostel

room to sleep. After some time, the accused, Subodh Tirki, teacher of the

school came to his bed and, holding his private part in his hand, began

moving it up and down, attempting to insert it into his mouth. Thereafter,

the victim pushed him away. His friend PW-4 witnessed the incident. In

the morning, he told the hostel warden about the incident. The warden

said she would speak to the principal. The victim informed the Principal

about the incident and also informed his father and uncle about the

incident over the phone. When they came, he reported the incident to the

police station and on the basis of information, FIR (Ex.P-1) was

registered against the appellant. In his cross-examination, he

categorically admitted the fact that he usually watch and play cricket and

knows some of the cricketers by name, he stated that he also knows the

cricketer Pollard, however, he negated the fact that he used to tease the

accused by calling him Pollard. He also negated the fact that he does not

know whether his class mates used to tease the accused by calling him

Pollard.

16. PW-2, father of victim stated that he knew the accused, Subodh Tirki.

The victim is his son and was a student of 7 th standard studied at Akshar

School hostel in Sanjaynagar. On 29/06/2015, his son informed him that

accused Subodh Tirki had misbehaved with him. The next day, he and

his brother went to Akshar School. Thereafter, his son stated that on the

date of the incident, he had gone to sleep after taking dinner. Around

midnight, accused Subodh Tirki came on his bed and hold his private

part and attempted to put it in his mouth. The victim then pushed him

away. They also met with the school Principal and director regarding the

incident and both of them told him that they would take action against

the accused. Thereafter, they went to the police station and reported the

incident.

17. PW-4, friend of the victim, has stated in his evidence that he knows the

accused Subodh Tirki. He also knows the victim, who studied in the

hostel of Akshar School and the accused herein was English teacher in

that school. On the date of incident, he was sleeping in the hostel at

night. He suddenly woke up. Some boy in the hostel had vomited. The

accused was checking him. After that, the accused went away from

there. The victim told him that the accused had come at night and was

putting his private part in his mouth. He punched him once, then the

accused was not able to put his private part in his mouth.

18. If 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 his

evidence.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State

(NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-

"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 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."

22. In view of the well-established legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and after a thorough examination of the evidence on

record, it is clear that the appellant, being the teacher of the school where

the victim was a student residing in the school hostel, committed the

alleged unnatural act on the victim. The statement of the victim (PW-1)

clearly discloses the incident, which is further corroborated by the

testimony of PW-4, who not only witnessed the victim narrate the

incident but also confirmed the victim's account. The timely reporting of

the matter by the victim to the school Principal and his father (PW-2),

followed by the lodging of the FIR, further strengthens the credibility of

the prosecution case. Consequently, the evidence overwhelmingly

supports the conviction of the appellant. Hence the trial Court has rightly

appreciated the entire facts of the case and convicted the accused under

Section 377 r/w Section 511 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

23. In this case, the accused has also been charged under Section 8 of the

POCSO Act. It has already been concluded that the victim was below the

18 years of age on the date of the incident and it has also been concluded

that on the date of incident, the accused attempted to commit sexual

assault on the victim by voluntarily causing carnal pleasure against the

order of nature. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond

reasonable doubt the conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

24. After considering the entire evidence available on record as above, this

Court 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.

25. 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.

26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the

trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and

compliance.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/Shoaib