2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Siyaram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 490 of 2024

In the absence of reliable evidence to prove minority, a conviction for sexual offences cannot be sustained solely on unauthenticated school records. When the victim is a consenting party, and the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Allegation of kidnapping and rape of a minor - Proof of age - Prosecution relying on school records - Determination of age must be based on credible evidence rather than mere document production - Age cannot be established solely through school registers without proof from the primary source or the author of the entries - Standards for age determination under relevant statutes must be strictly adhered to - Consent in cases involving alleged minors - If the victim is found to be a consenting party and the prosecution fails to prove minority, the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault do not stand. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - In criminal trials, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Failure to prove age effectively invalidates charges relying on statutory presumption of minority - Testimony of a victim must be of 'sterling quality' to be treated as unassailable; where contradictions and omissions are significant, the testimony cannot form the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 25, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of kidnapping, abduction, and sexual assault upon a victim alleged to be a minor. The prosecution case relied on a complaint by the father and school documents to establish age. The victim had accompanied the appellant to multiple locations before being recovered by authorities. The defense argued the relationship was consensual and that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority or the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence regarding the victim's age was insufficient and unreliable, as the school register entries were not authenticated by the author. Consequently, the finding of minority was deemed perverse. The victim's own admissions indicated a consensual relationship and an voluntary departure, undermining the charges of kidnapping and forcible sexual assault.

Issues: Whether the age of the victim was correctly determined as a minor; whether the prosecution proved the charges of kidnapping and rape beyond reasonable doubt; and whether the victim's testimony could be relied upon to support a conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The determination of age requires admissible evidence in accordance with statutory requirements, and school records alone without authentication lack probative value. In the absence of proof of minority and given the victim's own admission of a consensual relationship, the essential elements of the alleged offences were not satisfied.

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