IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
Thanda Ram Sidar S/o Banshilal Sidar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 595 of 2024
Decided on : 22-07-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4(2) - Conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault - The trial Court convicted the appellant for kidnapping a minor and sentenced him accordingly, but the conviction for sexual assault was set aside due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 26, 27)
(B) Age Determination - The court emphasized the importance of determining the victim's age accurately, referencing Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which outlines the procedure for age determination. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove the specific intent behind the abduction for a conviction under Section 366 IPC, which was not established in this case. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of kidnapping a 14-year-old girl and attempting to establish a sexual relationship under threats. The trial Court convicted him for kidnapping but not for sexual assault due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 2, 26)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC but set aside the conviction for sexual assault under Section 366 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. (Paras 26, 27)
Issues: The main issues included the determination of the victim's age and whether the appellant's actions constituted kidnapping and sexual assault. (Paras 8, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, while the conviction for kidnapping was upheld based on the evidence presented. (Paras 26, 27)
Result: The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the conviction for kidnapping and setting aside the conviction for sexual assault.
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund in Special Session Trial No. H-08/2023, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner :
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE |
| U/s 363 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 1 month |
| U/s 366 of IPC | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 2 months |
| U/s 4(2) of the POCSO Act | R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 6 months |
| U/s 506 Part-2 of IPC | R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 1 month |
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Mayadhar Sidar (PW-2), who is the father of the victim, lodged a report in the Sankara Police Station on 29.11.2022 that on the night of 17.11.2022, accused - Thandaram Sidar, who is his distant relative, after alluring his minor daughter, aged 14 years, took her away on his motorcycle and after searching for the victim, he went to his house, pacified his daughter and brought her back home. After a few days, on 28.11.2022, when Thandaram again abducted his daughter and was fleeing away, he was stopped by his wife and Dhaneshwar Pareshwar, then the accused threatened them to kill by saying that he would abduct his daughter and take her away. On the report of the complainant, First Information Report was registered in Sankara Police Station under Sections 363, 506 IPC under Crime Number 217/2022. During investigation, the victim told during interrogation that on 24.10.2022, she and her younger siblings were at home, then Thandaram came to their house, when her siblings went out of the house to play, Thandaram threatened her and established forceful physical relations with her and threatened to kill her if she told the incident to anyone. On the night of 17.11.2022, the accused lured her and took her to his village on a motorcycle. The next day his parents brought her back home. After this, Thandaram used to call her and threaten her, "Come with me, otherwise I will kill your family." After that, on 28.11.2022, Thandaram was again trying to take her away, when her parents caught him. On the basis of the statement of the accused, the offense of Sections 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 was added. After obtaining consent from the victim and her father, the victim’s genitals were examined by the doctor. Vaginal slides and underwear obtained after examining the private parts of the victim were confiscated. The accused was arrested and his medical examination was also done. A visual map of the incident site was prepared by the Police and Patwari. The slides and underwear seized in the case were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing. Thereafter, after recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation process, the charge sheet was presented in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund for trial.
3. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. None has been examined by the accused/appellant in his defence.
4. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences
The prosecution must prove specific intent for abduction under Section 366 IPC; failure to do so results in the acquittal of sexual assault charges.
The court affirmed the importance of credible evidence in sexual offense cases against minors while upholding the conviction for unlawful abduction but not for rape due to lack of proof.
Conviction for rape cannot be sustained where no signs of sexual intercourse is seen in victim’s body.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of evidence can result in acquittal.
The court affirmed that a victim's credible testimony can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases, even without corroborative medical evidence.
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
The Court ruled that evidence of school records is primary for establishing age in sexual offense cases, and a minor's consent is irrelevant. Conviction under Section 366A was modified to Section 363....
Victim of rape being minor, her consent has no significance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.