Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Nanda @ Lokesh Banjare – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No.979 of 2013|CRA No.995 of 2013
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Admissibility - Public documents under Section 35 of Evidence Act - Mere school registers without supporting material or authorship verification do not constitute definitive proof of age.
(C) Consent and Conduct - Where a prosecutrix maintains silence, fails to raise an alarm, and accompanies the accused voluntarily, it supports a finding of consent rather than abduction or force.
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged she was kidnapped and taken to another city where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the finding that the prosecutrix was a minor. The appellants challenged the findings, arguing the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was no credible proof of her minority.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents produced to prove the prosecutrix's age were not backed by conclusive evidence or official registers. Further, the prosecutrix's own testimony admitted she did not seek help when opportunities arose, indicating voluntary conduct.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the prosecutrix’s minority; whether the evidence of abduction and rape was substantiated; and whether the trial court erred in its assessment of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution carries the burden of proving minority for serious offences under the IPC; in the absence of credible evidence as per the preferred hierarchy (Birth/School/Matriculation certificates), the claim of juvenility fails. Conduct of the prosecutrix in failing to seek help despite contact with the public and police points towards voluntary accompaniment.
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sharmila Singhai, Rishabh Deo Shukla, Amit Kumar Sahu, S. P. Sahu
For the Respondents: Himanshu Yadu
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges and lower court sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding evidence, age, and consent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidentiary requirements for age determination of minor victims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. evaluation of conduct suggesting consent and lack of force. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final acquittal and order of release. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
C A V Judgment
| The date when the judgment is reserved | The date when the judgment is pronounced | The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19.03.2026 | 17.04.2026 | Operative: -- | Full: 17.04.2026 |
1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by a common order.
2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Bemetara, Civil District Durg, Revenue District Bemetara (C.G.) in ST No.66/2012, whereby the appellant Nanda @ Lokesh has been convicted under Sections 363/34, 366/34 & 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year, RI for 2 years and RI for 7 years with default stipulations, whereas the appellants Shekhar Bharti and Lalu @ Sanjay have been convicted under Sections 363/34 & 366/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year & RI for 2 years, respectively, with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.07.2012 when the prosecutrix had gone for nature’s call along with her friend, the accused persons forcefully took her on motorcycle to Raipur, where the accused Nanda stayed in aunt’s house along with the prosecutrix and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next day, he left her near Bajrangbali Temple and ran away. The prosecutrix with the help of coconut selling vendor reached to her house, where she narrated the entire incident to her parents. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons at the police station concerned. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecutrix and the appellant Nanda were in relationship as such she went with the accused persons voluntarily and she did not raise any alarm or did not ask for any help while going with the accused persons and on the way also some policemen met them then also she did not tell anything to them. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) himself admitted that there is previous enmity between them and just to escape from the complaint made by the accused Nanda against him, a false report was lodged against the accused persons. The learned Trial Court has also wrongly held that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident, whereas no prudent evidence or any documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution in this regard that she was minor on the date of incident. The learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspects of the matter and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ravindra Kumar Vaishnav vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC Online Chh 260, Tilku @ Tilak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 353 and this Court’s judgment dated 13.01.2026 passed in CRA No.396/2007 in between Onkar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh.
5. Per contra, learned State
