Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
A, J
Kishan Dehariya Suman Dehariya v. State of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal | SLP (Crl) No. 12345/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sunil Sahu
For the Respondents: Shri Avinash Singh
The importance of credible evidence in establishing charges under IPC and POCSO; minor status alone does not validate the conviction without proof.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, and 376(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentencing under POCSO and IPC - Conviction based on weak evidence and testimony deemed unreliable - Victim's age confirmed as minor, yet failure of prosecution to prove abduction and rape led to acquittal. (Paras 1, 32)
(B) Evidence and Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to corroborate minor's claim with credible evidence led to reversal of conviction. (Paras 1, 20)
Facts of the case:
The victim, aged 15 years, went missing while left alone at home. The accused allegedly abducted her; however, the prosecution could not conclusively prove the details of the alleged abduction nor the occurrence of sexual acts. (Paras 2, 30)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was unsupported by strong evidence; contradictions in victim's statements raised doubts on reliability. (Paras 30, 32)
Issues: Key issues involved proving the victim's age and whether the accused abducted her and committed rape. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to present credible evidence or corroborate the victim's testimony warranted a reversal of conviction; merely being a minor does not imply automatic guilt of the accused. (Paras 20, 32)
Result: Appeal allowed; the conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused acquitted of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of prosecution's case and appellant's conviction (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. framework of the trial and accused's denial (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's analysis of evidence (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments of appellant's counsel (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. significance of victim's age in case (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. doubts regarding charges of abduction and sexual exploitation (Para 26 , 31) |
| 7. court's conclusion on evidence sufficiency (Para 32) |
| 8. final judgment and order of acquittal (Para 33 , 34) |
1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant - accused under S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.3.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, FTC, Kabeerdham (CG) in Special Session Case No.305/2021, whereby the appellant - accused has been convicted under S.363, S.366, S.376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and S.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act') and sentenced in the following manner:
It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has been convicted under S.376(3), IPC also but penalty under S.6 of the POCSO Act is also similar, therefore, in view of S.42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been sentenced only for offence under S.6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant, who is the grand - father of the victim / prosecutrix, lodged a report in Police Station Kukdur that on 16.3.2012 at about 9.00 pm, he went to the filed to guard the chana (gram), his grand - daughter / victim / prosecutrix was sleeping alone in the house and parents of the victim / prosecutrix were making bricks in the courtyard of the house. On the next day morning, i.e. on 17.3.2012, when the complainant returned from the field, the victim / prosecutrix was not found in the house. They searched whereabouts of her, but could not find her and thereafter lodged FIR u/S. 363 of Indian Penal Code on 19.3.2021 at Police Station Kukdur, against unknown person. During investigation, the victim / prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant on 19.11.2023 and Baramdagi / recovery panchnama was prepared vide Ex - P / 1. Document in respect of age of the victim was collected and statement of the victim as well as other witnesses were recorded. According to the statement of the victim, the appellant lured her for marriage, took her to his uncle's house at Village Sheetaldagh and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her at night. She also stated that earlier also the appellant took her to forest area near Kodwa and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Based on this, offence under S.366 and S.376 ,IPC and S.4 and S.6 of the POCSO Act were added. Spot map (Ex - P / 4) was prepared. Statement of the victim under S.164 ,CrPC was got recorded vide Ex - P /
3. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Sangeeta Bajkar (PW - 4), who opined vide MLC report (Ex - P / 15) that no external or internal injury were found on the body of the victim and hymen was old ruptured. She prepared two vaginal slides and also recovered panty of the victim, handed over the same for chemical examination Vide (Ex - P / 16). Class - V marksheet (Article A) of the victim was seized vide Ex - P / 8. Dakhil Kharij Register of Primary School, Mathpur was seized vide Ex - P / 12. Underwear of the accused was seized vide Ex - P / 21. The appellant was arrested vide Ex - P / 24. FSL report (Ex - P / 28) was received with regard to seized undergarment and vaginal slides of the victim and the undergarment of the accused. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges under S.363, S.366, S.376(3) of the IPC and S.5/6 of the POCSO Act, read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt.
4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined following witnesses: -
Besides the aforesaid ocular e
