Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Anil Badi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 88 of 2008

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.L. Dembra
For the Respondents: Himanshu Yadu

When radiological age determination reports are based on ossification tests, they carry a permissible margin of two years; if this margin allows the prosecutrix to be considered major, and if her behavior in public suggests voluntary association with the accused, the prosecution fails to establish lack of consent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366-A, 376(1) and 506-B - Conviction of appellant set aside - Radiological age assessment found inconclusive - Determining the age of a prosecutrix remains essential - Radiological markers carry a two-year margin of error - Benefit of doubt must be extended in cases of disputed consent when the age remains unproven. (Paras 14, 17, 18 and 19).

(B) Evidence - Credibility of prosecutrix - The conduct of the prosecutrix in public spaces, such as remaining silent in an overcrowded bus, contradicts claims of forcible abduction and supports the theory of consent. (Paras 25 and 26).

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. The defense argued that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult and that the incident, if any, was consensual. The prosecution relied upon radiological evidence to prove the minority of the prosecutrix.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the radiological evidence allowed for a margin of error that included the age of 18, and noted the prosecutrix’s conduct during transport indicated freedom of movement and absence of duress.

Issues: Whether the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident and whether the alleged sexual acts were committed under duress or with consent.

Ratio Decidendi: If radiological evidence is inconclusive, the benefit of doubt regarding age and consent must be extended to the accused. Conduct of the alleged victim that is inconsistent with a claim of violent abduction and constant threat undermines the prosecution's case.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentences set aside.

Table of Content
1. prosecution details and initial conviction summary of the lower court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' contentions regarding evidence, delay, and consent. (Para 10 , 11)
3. analysis of age determination using radiological markers and jurisprudence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. evaluation of prosecutrix's conduct relative to the claim of non-consensual rape. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. final acquittal and directions on bail bonds. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

NAFR

Judgment On Board

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2007 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.122/2007 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as under :-

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 363 of IPC	R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 01 months.
Under Section 366-A of IPC	R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 01 months.
Under Section 506-B of IPC	R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 01 months.
Under Section 376(1) of IPC	R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that mother of prosecutrix gave oral report at police station to the effect that her daughter (PW-1), aged about 10 years, had gone on 11.12.2006 at about 3:00 p.m. to the Godha field for cutting grass/fodder, and although her another daughter returned from there, but prosecutrix (PW-1) did not come back home. On the basis of the said oral information, missing report No. 26/05 (Ex.P-16) was registered by Head Constable Nirmal Prasad (PW-5). When the prosecutrix (PW-1) was traced during the course of search, she stated that at the time of the incident she had gone, along with her younger sister and brother, to cut grass near the forest, at about 3:00 p.m., her sister told her, “Let us go to Bishunpur forest to pluck datoon and mukhari twigs.” Thereupon, the prosecutrix (PW-1) accompanied her sister to Bishunpur forest for plucking datoon. In the said forest, the accused and his two companions met them, caught hold of the prosecutrix (PW-1), enticed and induced her away, and took her to the house of the accused. Thereafter, the accused allegedly took her near a tree on the other side and committed forcible rape upon her. The accused and his companions had first apprehended the prosecutrix in the forest. The next day, the accused brought the prosecutrix (PW-1) to Ambikapur on the pretext of solemnizing a court marriage and kept her at the house of his maternal uncle at Namna, where the accused again committed forcible rape upon her. The accused had also threatened the prosecutrix with a knife, telling her that if she disclosed the incident, he would kill her.

3. After searching for two or three days, the father (PW-3) of the prosecutrix went to Ambikapur. On seeing her father, the accused fled away, and the father (PW-3) brought the prosecutrix back home. Thereafter, a village meeting was convened, and as the accused had absconded, the present report was lodged. Upon receiving the aforesaid information, Head Constable Saklu Ram (PW-4) recorded the FIR (Ex.P-1). On 06.01.2007, constable reduced into writing the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) as narrated by her. On the same date, the Investigating Officer, Head Constable Saklu Ram (PW-4), also recorded the statement of the complainant and the statement of father of prosecutrix (PW-3) as narrated by them.

4. During the course of investigation, Head Constable Saklu Ram (PW-4) seized one pink-coloured undergarment from the complainant in the presence of witnesses under seizure memo Ex. P-4. On the same date, consent of the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRajani Dubey, JAnil Badi – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 88 of 2008

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Anil Badi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 88 of 2008