“Victim Was a Consenting Party, No Proof She Was a Minor”: Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man of Rape Charges, Notes ‘She Was Habituated to Sexual Intercourse’
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. The appellant, who was in judicial custody, was ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.
The criminal appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the appellant, who was convicted by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, in Special Case No. 27/2018. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and an additional ten years of rigorous imprisonment with the same fine under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
According to the prosecution, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report on 12 July 2018 stating that his daughter left home on 8 July 2018, allegedly to visit her grandmother. However, she did not reach there and could not be located. Upon further inquiry, a friend of the prosecutrix informed the family that she had seen the prosecutrix with the appellant. Both the prosecutrix and the appellant were found missing from the same day. On 18 July 2018, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant in Durg.
To support its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein he denied the allegations and claimed false implication. No defence witness was examined on his behalf.
Challenging the trial court’s judgment, the appellant contended that the decision was perverse and not based on legally admissible evidence. He submitted that the prosecutrix had stated in her deposition that she was above 18 years of age at the time of the incident. The appellant further argued that the prosecution had failed to produce valid documentary proof of the prosecutrix’s minority. He contended that key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and there were material contradictions in their statements under Section 161 CrPC and before the Court.
In response, the State counsel argued that the prosecutrix was a minor, and irrespective of any consensual relationship, the appellant was liable under the relevant provisions of IPC and POCSO Act. The State asserted that the judgment of the Trial Court was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and warranted no interference.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma examined the evidentiary material concerning the age of the prosecutrix in the light of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court stated in the judgment:
“There is no legally admissible evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix that on the date of incident she was minor and less than 18 years of age.”
The Court found that the prosecution relied on the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex. P-17), which mentioned the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10 April 2001. However, it was noted:
“There is no any documentary evidence available on record that only on the basis of 1st class mark-sheet her date of birth of prosecutrix is marked and also no Kotwari Register has been produced.”
It was also recorded that no ossification test was conducted. Furthermore, the prosecutrix stated during her examination: “Her date of birth in the Dakhil Kharij Register has been wrongly mentioned as 10.04.2001 instead her actual date of birth is 10.04.2000.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Alamelu and Another v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385, and stated: “The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.”
Further referencing Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, the judgment added: “The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.”
With regard to the incident, the Court examined the deposition of the prosecutrix. It recorded that: “She herself went with him and remained with him for some days.”
The medical evidence also did not corroborate the prosecution's allegations. The Court noted:
“Doctor PW-09 in her deposition has stated that she did not found any external and internal injury on the body of the victim as well as on her private part. The secondary sexual organs were fully developed and the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.”
Summarising its findings, the Court recorded: “The age of the prosecutrix is not verified and not proved by the prosecution that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and she was a consenting party and also it is a case of elopement.”
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix and the charges under IPC and POCSO Act could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Court issued the following directive:
“The appeal is allowed accordingly. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. Appellant stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.”
Further, it directed: “The appellant is reported to be in jail. He is released forthwith, if not required in any other case.”
It also instructed: “The Trial Court Record (TCR) along with a copy of this Judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:16015
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1806 of 2019
Bench: Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
[Read/Download order]
