Judgment : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jnajgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 70/2022 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for twenty days. 2. The case of the prosecution as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that prior 27.07.2022 and on 27.07.2022 at about 10:00 pm the appellant herein committed repeatedly sexual intercourse with his minor daughter [victim (PW-2)] and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. On 29.07.2022 the victim (PW-2) reported the matter to the police about the said incident pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/6. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/13. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-7) who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex.P/11. As per the medical report of the victim (Ex.P/11) no evidence of forecfull sexual assault was found by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-7). Vaginal slides were prepared by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-7) for chemical analysis. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/10) on the vaginal slide and underwear of the victim semen and human sperm were not found however, on the semen slide and underwear of the appellant stains of semen and human sperm were found. 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the victim, who is the daughter of the appellant, has falsely implicated the appellant in crime in question. He would also submit that the medial evidence as well as the forensic evidence have not supported the case of the prosecution.He would further submit that the victim is not the “sterling witness”, therefore, the appellant is entitled for clean acquittal. Thus appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the appellant is not entitled for acquittal. 8. I have heard learned counsel, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 9. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellant is solely based on the testimony of the victim (PW-2) as the medical evidence (Ex.P/11) proved by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-7) nowhere supports the case of the prosecution as the hymen was old ruptured; no internal injuries were found and also no sign of sexual intercourse was found. Even, in forensic evidence (Ex.P/10) on the vaginal slide of the victim stains of semen and human sperm were not found. Therefore, in absence of medical and the forensic evidences, the trial Court has proceeded to convict of the appellant only on the basis of oral testimony of the victim (PW-2). As such, the statement of the victim (PW-2) should be of “sterling quality” to base the conviction of the appellant. Therefore, in absence of medical and the forensic evidences, the trial Court has proceeded to convict of the appellant only on the basis of oral testimony of the victim (PW-2). As such, the statement of the victim (PW-2) should be of “sterling quality” to base the conviction of the appellant. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) , [ (2012) 8 SCC 21 ] has observed that who can be said to be a “sterling witness” and which has been recently followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar , [(2020) 2 S.C.R. 798] . Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) have held in paragraph No.22 as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre 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. 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, can it 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 precise, 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.” 10.Now, the question for consideration would be whether the statement of victim inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and whether it is of sterling quality? 11.In order to examine the same the statement of victim (PW-2) may be noticed herein in which the victim (PW-2) in examination-in-chief has not supported the case of the prosecution and only stated that my father (appellant) had committed maar-peet and except that nothing has been done by the appellant. Though the victim (PW-2) was declared hostile and subjected to leading question and in reply of the same she has stated that her father (appellant) prior to 27.07.2022 as well as on 27.07.2022 has committed sexual intercourse with her against which she reported the matter. However, in the cross-examination she has admitted the fact that earlier she had absconded with one Ritesh Yadav (not examined) and on being report, Ritesh Yadav was arrested and sent to the jail, due to which, grandmother and other family members of Ritesh started pressurising her to withdraw the case. However, in the cross-examination she has admitted the fact that earlier she had absconded with one Ritesh Yadav (not examined) and on being report, Ritesh Yadav was arrested and sent to the jail, due to which, grandmother and other family members of Ritesh started pressurising her to withdraw the case. She has further stated that on the date of incident her father (appellant) was in the state of intoxication and the food prepared by her was not liked by her father, therefore, he had committed maar-peet with her, on account of which, she went outside of the house where grandmother of Ritesh Yadav met her and took her to the police station and lodged the report against her father (appellant). She has further stated that since her father (appellant) reported the matter against Ritesh Yadav, grandmother of Ritesh Yadav wanted to implicate her father (appellant) in offence, therefore, on the basis of statement made by grandmother of Ritesh Yadav, she (victim) reported the matter to the police and made her thumb impression. As such, she appears to be tutored witness, who was tutored by the grandmother of Ritesh Yadav (not examied) as the victim had reported the matter at the instance of the appellant against Ritesh Yadva, due to which, Ritesh Yadav has been jailed and, therefore, it is quite clear that there was an enmity between the appellant and the family of Ritesh Yadav on account of which grandmother and other family members of Ritesh Yadav pressurised the victim to make a complaint against the appellant herein and ultimately which she (victim) made. Even otherwise, medical report and FSL report do not support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is a clear case of false implication as victim fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness” as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra). In that view of the matter, it would be absolutely risky to maintain the conviction of the appellant and, therefore, he is entitled for clean acquittal. 12.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. He is stated to be in jail since 30.07.2022. 12.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. He is stated to be in jail since 30.07.2022. I direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other offence. 13.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and also the copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.