2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Rahul Sonwani – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1536 of 2025

A conviction for sexual assault cannot be sustained when forensic and medical evidence fails to corroborate the allegation, the victim's conduct appears unnatural, and the prosecution fails to provide legally admissible, foundational evidence to establish the victim's age, failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 415(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Abduction and sexual assault - Conviction based on school admission records - Age of victim not conclusively proved - Absence of corroborative medical and forensic evidence - Unnatural conduct of victim casts doubt on prosecution story.

(B) Age determination - Reliability of school records - Mere reliance on school admission register, where entries were not supported by foundational documents or author, is insufficient to determine minority - Standard of proof requires cogent and legally admissible evidence - Presumption of age record in school registers without corroboration is not conclusive. (Paras 24, 27, 31, 33)

(C) Evidence - Credibility of victim's testimony - While conviction can be based solely on testimony of victim, same must be wholly reliable and consistent - Conduct of victim, including failure to raise alarm in public places or seek help when opportunities existed, coupled with absence of forensic evidence, renders testimony unsafe for conviction. (Paras 41, 45)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, abduction, and sexual assault of a minor. The prosecution case rested on the victim's testimony and the age recorded in a school admission register. During investigation, no forensic evidence or medical reports confirmed the allegations of sexual assault. The defense contended that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority and that the victim's conduct was inconsistent with the allegations of forcible sexual assault.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce foundational evidence to substantiate the age entry in the school records. Further, the forensic examination of slides and clothing yielded negative results for spermatozoa, and the medical examination showed no signs of sexual violence. The victim's own admissions regarding her movement and lack of alarm in public places created insurmountable doubts regarding the veracity of the complaint.

Issues: The main issues were whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Age determination based on school records requires proof of the correctness of the entries and the source of information; mere production of such records without examining the maker or verifying foundational documents is insufficient. Furthermore, in the absence of forensic or medical confirmation and given the unnatural conduct of the victim in failing to resist or report the incident when possible, it is unsafe to maintain a conviction.

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