Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Parmeshwar Chandravanshi S/o Lilhar Chandravanshi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 467 of 2021
Decided On : 24-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(I) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3(A)/4 - Conviction and sentencing of appellant for kidnapping and sexual assault - Conviction based on insufficient evidence regarding the victim's age and lack of corroborative witness testimony. (Paras 1, 2, 11, 12)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Admissibility of documents - Transfer certificate's evidentiary value questioned due to lack of testimony from the person who recorded the age. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor. The victim's age was contested, with the prosecution relying on school records that were not adequately substantiated. (Paras 2, 11)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not sustainable. (Paras 11, 12)
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, affecting the validity of the charges. (Paras 7, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the victim's age, and in the absence of credible evidence, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges.
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26/03/2021 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, (Charge F.T.C.), District Balod, C.G. in Special S.T. No.18/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | R.I. for Three Years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine one month additional R.I. |
| Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | R.I. for Five years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine one month additional R.I. |
| Under Section 376 (2) (I) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | R.I. for Ten years and fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of fine Two months additional R.I. |
| Under Section 3 (A)/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | R.I. for Seven years and fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of fine Two months additional R.I. |
| All sentences run concurrently and fine amount separately recovered. |
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.02.2019, the prosecutrix lodged a report in the police station Balod that on 09.02.2019 at about 02.30 pm, her granddaughter, aged 15 years 02 months 19 days, went somewhere from her house in village Matiya-P without informing anyone and she could not be found even after searching. Based on the above information, missing person case no. -12/2019 was registered in police station Balod and search was made and crime No. -70/2019 under section 363 IPC was registered against unknown accused in police station Balod and investigation was started. During investigation, the minor victim was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 21.02.2019. The statement of the minor victim was recorded under section 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her medical examination was conducted. The victim's underwear was seized and tested. The progress card of class 9th regarding the age of the victim and the admission and Dakhil Kharij Register of the school were seized. The accused was arrested and his underwear was seized and the accused and the underwear were tested. The property received from the hospital were sent for examination in Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The motorcycle used in the crime along with the documents was seized. A site map of the incident was made and statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded. After all the remaining investigation, a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Sections 4, 5 (B) & 6 of the POCSO Act was presented before the court.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 10 witnesses. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. She would next contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim and the learned trial Court has only relied upon the document mark-sheet which is not proved by its author. She would next contend that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. She would lastly contend that the order of the trial Court requires interference by this Court and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges and he may be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection.
7. The primary which falls for consideration before this Court is that whether on the date of incident the prosecutrix was minor or not?
8. The father of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-3 and he has not stated
The prosecution must prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on official records alone is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age and lack of consent in sexual assault cases; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence of consent negating charges of kidnapping and rape.
The court ruled that the prosecutrix was above 18 years and a consenting party, negating the applicability of POCSO Act provisions.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence to establish the victim's age and the nature of the relationship; mere documentation without proper verification lacks probative value.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
