Back
2025 Supreme(Chh) 318
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
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304(a), S.363, S.366, S.376(1)
Headnote
(B) Burden of Proof - It is the prosecution's obligation to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding consent and age - Insufficient evidence resulted in a lack of conviction. (Paras 25-26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of kidnapping and raping the prosecutrix, who alleged repeated sexual assaults, but evidence indicated they lived together agreeably and consensually for substantial time.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the prosecution's claims of abduction and non-consensual sex; the appellant was acquitted based on the lack of reliable evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecutrix was a minor and whether the acts were consensual or coercive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence regarding the minor's age and the nature of consent, concluding that without credible evidence, the charges could not stand.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
For the Appellant :Mr. D.N. Prajapati along with Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L.
| 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
