Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Arjun Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 97 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal
For the Respondents: Sourabh Sahu

A conviction for sexual assault cannot be sustained when crucial factors like the age of the victim are not proven by foundational evidence, and the testimony of the victim lacks corroboration, shows unexplained delays in reporting, and is inconsistent with the medical and forensic clinical findings.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376(3) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2012 - Sections 3(1)(f)(i), 3(2)(v) - Determination of age - Prosecution relying on school records - Headmaster admitting he is not the author of entries and cannot verify basis - Held, in absence of foundational evidence regarding source of date of birth, school records lack evidentiary value to establish minority status - Benefit of doubt must accrue to accused. (Paras 19, 20, 26, 27)

(B) Evidence Act - Section 35 - Public document - Admissibility vs. Evaluative value - Mere production and marking of document does not amount to proof of contents - Evidentiary value requires proof of facts by those who can vouchsafe for the truth of the contents - Determination of age must be based on cogent and legally admissible evidence rather than assumptions or approximations. (Paras 22, 23, 29)

(C) Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Rape - Absence of visible injuries during alleged resistance - Delayed reporting of incident - Forensic results inconclusive for serological analysis - Conviction on uncorroborated victim testimony requires reliability and consistency - Failure to disprove defense - Prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 31, 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
An appeal filed against the conviction and sentence for sexual assault of a minor. The prosecution case alleged that the victim was pulled and raped while returning from a store. The trial court convicted the accused based on school register entries regarding the victim's age and the victim's own testimony. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient proof of the victim's age and lack of corroboration of the alleged crime.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority as the school records were not supported by foundational evidence. Additionally, the victim's testimony was inconsistent, suffering from unexplained delays in reporting, lack of physical injuries despite asserted resistance, and inconclusive medical/forensic evidence.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, and whether the evidence sufficiently proved the commission of the alleged sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: School records used to determine age are inadmissible or lack probative value if the author of the entry is not examined or the source of the data is unexplained. Furthermore, in criminal trials for sexual offenses, if evidence of injury is absent, reporting is delayed without justification, and forensic evidence is inconclusive, conviction cannot be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim alone.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and commencement of appeal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of prosecution case, gathered evidence, and trial court proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. contention of false implication versus sufficiency of prosecution evidence. (Para 14 , 15)
4. failure to satisfy legal requirements for proving minor status. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. lack of conclusive evidentiary proof resulting in acquittal. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. final order of acquittal and procedural discharge requirements. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice.

1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 01 of 2025 (application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail), however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. Learned State counsel submits that notice issued to the father of the victim (PW-2) has been duly served; however, no one has appeared on behalf of the victim to contest the present appeal.

4. The present criminal appeal, preferred under Section 4 15(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd (POCSO) Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Session Case No. 53 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 01 month.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim filed a written report at Rakhi Police Station stating that on 31.12.2019, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the accused, a resident of her village, came and asked her to come to the Panchayat Bhawan, which she refused. Subsequently, while she was returning home after purchasing groceries from Dhannu Grocery Store, the accused forcibly took her to the Nimora Health Center, hugged her, and began kissing her. He then began undressing her. She refused, but the accused denied, lifting her up with his hands raped her while standing. When she returned home, her father and brother began assaulting her without question. However, she refused to disclose the incident to anyone. On 02.01.2020, when her father invited relatives to the house, she disclosed the incident to them. Then a written complaint regarding the incident was lodged at Rakhi police station.

6. On the basis of this written complaint Ex.P.-01, First Information Report Ex.P.-02 was registered against the accused in Police Station Rakhi in Crime No. 03/2020 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 , 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

7. During the investigation, a site map of the incident Ex.P.-03, Ex.P.-18 and a Patwari map Ex.P.-04 were prepared. Regarding the victim's date of birth, in which the victim's date of birth is mentioned, the original progress report of class 5th of the victim Ex.P.-06 and the attested copy of the admission and rejection register of the victim's school Ex.P-34'C' were seized as per seizure memo Ex.P.-29. As per seizure memo Ex.P.-10, the caste certificate of the victim Ex.P.-08 was seized. For the examination of the private parts of the victim, after taking consent from the victim and her mother as per Ex.P.-05 and Ex.P.-12, her private parts were examined as per Ex.P.-14 and Ex.P.-15 respectively and the clothes seized from her were examined. According to Ex.P.-16 and Ex.P.-17, the private parts of the accused and the clothes seized from him were examined. As per seizure memo Ex.P.-0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JArjun Yadav – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 97 of 2025

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Arjun Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 97 of 2025