Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14384

2026:CGHC:18914-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1055 of 2024

Ajay Sahu S/o Shri Panchram @ Bablu Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Pisid, Thana - Kasdol, Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodbazar, Distt - Balodbazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Sahu
For the Respondents: Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal

A conviction for sexual offences involving a minor cannot rest on school records that lack proof of the basis of birth entries. Where the victim's testimony lacks 'sterling quality' and does not inspire confidence due to inconsistencies and delayed reporting, the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376(3) - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374(2) - Determination of age - School records, unless author examined or basis for entry proved, are not conclusive evidence of age - Admissions in school records without foundational proof of how date of birth was recorded do not establish minority status. (Paras 21-23, 26)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of victim - Credibility - Conviction cannot be sustained solely on victim's testimony if witness is not of 'sterling quality' and exhibits inconsistencies, omissions, and lack of corroborating evidence - Delay in lodging FIR and conduct showing consent militate against conviction. (Paras 29-30, 33-35)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping, sexual assault, and offences under special child protection laws. The prosecution relied primarily on school records to establish the victim's age and the sole testimony of the victim regarding the alleged incident. The defense argued the victim's age was not proven, that the victim’s conduct was consistent with consent, and that the FIR was delayed by over three months without credible explanation, highlighting a prior dispute between the parties.

Findings of Court:
The court found that school records provided by the prosecution were not proven in accordance with law as the headmaster was not the author and could not testify as to the veracity of the entries. Furthermore, the victim’s own conduct and the delay in reporting indicated potential consent, and the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor, rendering the sentencing under special legislation unsustainable.

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the victim through school records and whether the evidence of the victim was sufficient to sustain a conviction for sexual offences in the absence of corroboration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere production of school records is insufficient proof of age without examining the author or proving the basis of the entry. Given the inconsistent nature of the testimony, the delay in complaint, and failure to establish the victim as a minor, the chain of evidence was incomplete, necessitating acquittal.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Judgement on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24/04/2026

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant – Ajay Sahu (in jail), assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Balodabazar (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 86/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced as under:

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 7,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’)	Life Imprisonment (meaning imprisonment for the remainder of natural life) and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has also been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code; however, no separate sentence has been awarded for the said offence in view of Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as the punishment prescribed under the POCSO Act is equally stringent, and has accordingly been applied by the learned trial Court.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 31.10.2023, the complainant, who is the father of the victim, submitted a written report (Ex. D-01) at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar (C.G.), alleging that on 09.07.2023 at about 9:00 PM, while the victim was sitting outside her house, the present appellant approached her and enticed her to accompany him to a dhaba on the pretext of offering her a chicken meal. The victim thereafter accompanied the appellant on his motorcycle to a dhaba near village Chhanchi, where the appellant allegedly took her inside a room and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will.

4. On the basis of the said written report, a First Information Report bearing Crime No. 561/2023 was registered on 01.11.2023 at Police Station Kasdol under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the present appellant.

5. The victim was sent for her medical examination to C.H.C. Kasdol, where she was being medically examined by doctor, who gave her medical report (exhibit P-12). According to the MLC report of the victim, no sign of struggle or injuries on her private part were noticed and the doctor opined that after examination of victim, no definite opinion can be given about recent sexual intercourse. Spot Map (exhibit P-2) was prepared by the police.

6. With respect to the age and date of birth of the victim, the police has seized school register vide seizure memo (exhibit P-6) and after retaining its attested true copy (exhibit P-8C and P-9C), the same was returned back to the school and as per the school register, the date of birth of the victim is 20.04.2008. The vaginal slides of the victim were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Raipur. However, there is no FSL report submitted by the prosecution.

7. Statement of the victim under Section 164 of CRPC and the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 376, 363, 366 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of PO

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14384

Cases Referred (6)