Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Ajay – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 617 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhtar Hussain
For the Respondents: Nitansh Jaiswal

A conviction for sexual assault cannot be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the victim's age through admissible evidence and where the victim's conduct, characterized by a lack of protest during prolonged exposure to the accused, fails to inspire confidence regarding the allegations of non-consensual intercourse.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) - Rape and Abduction - Age determination - Burden of proof - Prosecution failed to establish victim's minority through reliable documentary evidence. The school register entries were without basis or document source, failing to meet requirements under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Paras 11, 18, 26, 27)

(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - Sexual assault - Prosecution case failed to prove non-consensual sexual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt where the victim’s conduct of not raising alarm or shouting for help while travelling with the appellant was inconsistent with the plea of forcible abduction. (Paras 41, 42, 44)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abducted a minor and committed rape. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority and that the sexual relationship was consensual.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the prosecution did not produce reliable foundational evidence to prove the victim was a minor. The testimony of the victim was found to be unreliable due to her conduct and the lack of external injuries. The Court determined that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere production of school registers without verifying the source or basis of the entry is insufficient to prove date of birth. Further, where a victim failed to raise an alarm or protest despite numerous opportunities, and where there is no evidence of force, the testimony does not inspire confidence to sustain a conviction for rape. Result : Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution case and trial court conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
2. appellate arguments regarding evidentiary gaps and consent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. inadequate proof of victim's minority status. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. failure to prove non-consensual nature of intercourse. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. acquittal due to failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. The present criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C (POCSO), Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Special Criminal Case No. 27 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:

Conviction	Sentence
Section 363 of the the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’)	Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 02 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more.
Section 366 of the IPC	R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more.
Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC	R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of the incident, at around 11:00 p.m., the victim (PW-2) went to the courtyard of her house to use the bathroom. The appellant, Ajay, was present nearby. Upon being called by him, the victim went to him, after which he took her to his maternal uncle’s house at Bagnachha Dafai, Haldibadi. He kept her there overnight and, on the pretext of marriage, committed rape upon her. On the following evening, the appellant took the victim by bus to his house in Surajpur, where he again committed rape upon her during the night.

4. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the victim’s mother (PW-3), FIR bearing Crime No. 279/2019 (Ex.P/5) was registered at Police Outpost Chirmiri under Section 363 of the IPC.

5. During investigation, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Upon completion, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 368, and 34 IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 19 /21 thereof.

6. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(N) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Co-accused Sanjay, Shivkumar, and Suhano were charged under Section 368 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 21 of the POCSO Act. All accused denied the charges. The prosecution failed to prove charges against the co-accused beyond reasonable doubt, and they were acquitted.

7. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. The appellant did not lead any defence evidence.

8. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication.

9. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as detailed in paragraph 02 of the judgment. Aggrieved, by the same the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are contrary to law and evidence on record. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence, which go to the root of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JAjay – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 617 of 2022

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Ajay – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 617 of 2022