Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
Vinod Kumar, S/o Rambharos Cherwa – Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 1084 of 2015
Decided On : 09-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and prosecution case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments made by appellant regarding consent (Para 7 , 19 , 24) |
| 3. consideration of age as relevant evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and consent (Para 16 , 18 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. appeal decision and acquittal of appellant (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Surguja (Ambikapur (Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), in Sessions Case No. 292/2013, whereby the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 363 of IPC. | R.I.. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| U/s 366 of IPC | R.I.. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| U/s 376(1) of IPC | For life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| U/s 3 (a)/04 of POCSO, 2012 | For life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| U/s 5(j) (ii)/6 of POCSO | For life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
(All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.)
2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that on 15.04.2013, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Gandhinagar, alleging therein that in the month of December, 2011, when she was studying at Village Khaliba and residing in her maternal grandfather’s house, at about 7:00 pm., near Hand Pump, the prosecutrix was passing by and the appellant caught hold her and took her to the field side, where the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her by lying her on the ground and taking off her clothes, giving her assurance of marriage and also threatened her for dire consequences if at all she narrates about the said incident to anyone. Thereafter, on several times, whenever he got the opportunity, he committed sexual intercourse with her for over two years, as such, she got pregnant and the same was aborted by taking medicine. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant took her to village Bargai and kept her in his relatives’ house for a month and subsequently, he took her to his uncle’s house at Kulhadi and kept her for 12 days and then to a rented house in Shubhashnagar for three months and they lived together as husband and wife and since last two months, she was residing with the appellant in his house, but now the appellant refused to keep her, regarding the same a social meeting was convened, where the B.D.C. Madan, Sarpanch Hirasay, Uncle Goverdhan etc. were there and they made appellant understand the things, despite this, he did not agree to keep the prosecutrix with him, therefore, she lodged the oral report at Gandhinagar Police Station. On the basis of the above report, F.I.R vide Ex. P/05 was registered against the appellant by (PW-07) C.S. Netam, Inspector.
3. During the investigation, the Inspector C.S. Netam had sent complaint vide Ex. P/11 to the S.D.M. Ambikapur for permission regarding private parts of the prosecutrix (PW-04) and as per Es. P/06, consent for private parts examination was obtained from the prosecutrix and Noharsai. Thereafter, complaint vide Ex. P/1A was sent to Primary Heatlh Centre, Fundurdihari for getting the private parts of the prosecutrix (PW-04) examined on which Dr. Pooja Agrawal (PW-01) had provided the report as per Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2. On 15.04.2013 after examination of the private parts of the prosecutrix, Constable Sarita Uike, brought the slides an
The prosecution must prove the age of the victim and the absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix's age under 18 years and her consent negated the charges of abduction and sexual assault.
Burden of proof lies with prosecution to establish all aspects of an offense, particularly the minor status of the victim, which affects the conviction under sexual assault laws.
The prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years and that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
School records' date of birth entries admissible but not conclusive proof of age without evidence of basis; prosecution must prove victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt for statutory rape convict....
The court acquitted the accused due to reasonable doubt about the prosecutrix's age and consent, emphasizing that without credible evidence or corroboration, a conviction cannot be sustained.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the prosecutrix's age and consent in cases involving offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376 and the Scheduled Caste....
The age of the prosecutrix is critical in rape cases; if she is below 16, consent is irrelevant, establishing the accused's guilt under Sections 363 and 376 RPC.
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
