Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10310

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Virendra Vishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRA No. 698 of 2005

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Seema Singh
For the Respondents: Shailesh Puriya

Where evidence regarding the victim's age is inconclusive and the victim is 16 years of age, the court must apply the benefit of doubt to an accused charged with rape under Section 375 IPC (pre-2013) if there is evidence suggesting the victim was a consenting party.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376, 450 - Rape - Kidnapping - Abduction - Age of consent - Prosecution failed to prove victim was below age of consent as per law prevalent prior to 03.02.2013 and evidence of age was not conclusive - Medical evidence and conduct of parties indicated possibility of consent - Principle of benefit of doubt applies for charge under Section 376 IPC.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appellate Court - Duty to review evidence - Where two views are possible, view favourable to accused must be adopted - Conviction under Sections 363, 366 and 450 affirmed as act of taking minor from lawful guardianship was proved.

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for house trespass, kidnapping, abduction, and rape. The appellant argued that the victim was a consenting party, the prosecution failed to prove her age, and there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The trial court had relied on school records and medical testimony to convict the appellant.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence regarding the age of the victim was inconclusive and that she was sixteen years old, which was the age of consent under Section 375 of the IPC at the time of the incident. Consequently, the conviction under Section 376 was set aside due to lack of evidence of forced sexual intercourse, while convictions for other sections were affirmed.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established the age of the victim to prove non-consent and whether the forced sexual intercourse was proven.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of conclusive proof that the victim was below the age of consent and given the lack of medical evidence of force or injury, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the rape charge, while remaining liable for kidnapping and related offences where the statutory threshold is lower.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside, others affirmed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court findings and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding age of consent, delay in fir, and consent. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. assessment of evidence and determination of benefit of doubt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. affirmation of kidnapping convictions and modification of sentence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

NAFR

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 29.07.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 38/2005, wherein the said court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 450 of IPC	R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 1 month.
U/s 363 of IPC	R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 1 month.
U/s 366 of IPC	R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 10 days.
U/s 376 of IPC	R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 15 days.

All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 17.03.2005 in night at about 8:00 PM, the victim (PW/1), was present at her house in village Uparghincha. At that time, her parents had gone out of the village for a social visit, and she was at home along with her younger sisters, Lalita and Pushpa. The accused came to her house and asked her to accompany him to Raigarh. When the victim refused, the accused threatened to assault her. Thereafter, he allured and forcibly took her away to Raigarh against her will. At Raigarh, near the Jindal Company, the accused took shelter at the house of one Suman in a Depot. While staying there, the accused, on the pretext of marriage, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim on three occasions. On 20.03.2005, searching for her, Devcharan (PW/ 3) and the elder brother of the accused, Hiradhar, reached there. On the first day, the accused hid the victim. On the next day, i.e., 21.03.2005, when Devcharan and Bhuneshwar again reached there, they brought both the victim and the accused back to village Uparghincha. Subsequently, on 24.03.2005, the victim lodged a report (Exhibit P/1) at Police Station Kansabel regarding the incident.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur and the case was subsequently committed to the Court of Session. Based on the evidence on record, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 450, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, has examined witnesses namely Parmila (PW-1), Binduram (PW-2), Devcharan (PW-3), Dr. Smt. R. Toppo (PW-4), Dr. Y.K. Toppo (PW-5), Udaynath Singh (PW-6), Shankar Sidar, Patwari (PW-7) and S.L. Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-8) & exhibited documents namely FIR (Ex. P/1), Consent for medical examination (Ex. P/2), Najri Naksha (Ex. P/3), Patwari Naksha (Ex. P/4), Seizure memos (Ex. P/5 to Ex.P/8), memo for medical examination of victim (Ex. P/9), memo for medical examination of accused (Ex. P/10), Birth Certificate (Ex. P/11), Dakhil Kharij (Ex. P/12), Application for medical examination of the victim (Ex. P/13), Memo to CHC for medical examination of the victim (Ex. P/14), Memo to CHC for medical examination of the accused (Ex. P/15) and Receipt of FSL, Raipur (Ex. P/16). The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied the charges levelled against him and has taken plea of false implication on the pretext that father of the victim wanted him to work under him only as labour.

5. The learned Trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10310

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURNarendra Kumar Vyas, JVirendra Vishwakarma – AppellantVersusState Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentCRA No. 698 of 2005

Where evidence regarding the victim's age is inconclusive and the victim is 16 years of age, the court must apply the benefit of doubt to an accused charged with rape under Section 375 IPC (pre-2013) if there is evidence suggesting the victim was a consenting party.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Virendra Vishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRA No. 698 of 2005