Insufficient Evidence of Minor Status Leads to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Chhattisgarh High Court

Overview of the Case

On February 14, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of CRA No. 363 of 2020 , involving multiple appellants accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court's decision stemmed from a conviction and sentence handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge in Raigarh on February 18, 2020, which the appellants contested.

Key Parties Involved

The appellants included Rajiv Kumar @ Raju, Satya Narayan Dewangan @ Satya, Tej Kumar, Akbar Khan @ Raj, and Kailash Kumar Bareth , all of whom faced serious charges related to sexual offences against a minor. The State of Chhattisgarh represented the prosecution.

Legal Questions at Hand

The central legal question revolved around the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged offences. The prosecution claimed she was a minor, while the defence argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish her age conclusively.

Arguments Presented

Prosecution's Case

The prosecution's case was built on the testimony of the prosecutrix and various witnesses, asserting that she was abducted and sexually assaulted by the appellants. They relied on the Dakhil-Kharij register from the school, which indicated her date of birth as September 6, 2005, suggesting she was underage during the incidents.

Defence's Counterarguments

The defence argued that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence regarding the prosecutrix's age. They highlighted contradictions in her statements and pointed out that no medical examination was conducted to determine her age. Furthermore, they contended that the prosecutrix had willingly associated with the accused and had opportunities to escape or report the incidents but chose not to.

Legal Precedents and Principles

The court referenced several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Alamelu and another v. State and Manak Chand alias Mani v. State of Haryana , emphasizing that the age recorded in school registers lacks evidentiary value without corroborating testimony. The court noted that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the prosecutrix's minor status beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment underscored the importance of reliable evidence in sexual offence cases, stating:

> "The evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter."

The court found that the prosecution had not established the prosecutrix's age conclusively and that her conduct during the alleged incidents raised doubts about her claims.

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted all appellants, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's decision highlights the critical need for robust evidence in cases involving allegations of sexual offences, particularly concerning the age of the victim.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the judicial system's commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence rather than assumptions or incomplete information.

---

This judgment not only impacts the appellants but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar allegations, emphasizing the necessity for clear and convincing evidence in the prosecution of sexual offences.