Insufficient Proof of Victim's Minority & Lack of Coercion in Kidnapping Leads to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-09-20

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Citing Lack of Proof on Victim’s Age and Absence of Coercion

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a 25-year-old man, Firoj Vaishnav, setting aside his 20-year sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim was a minor and could not establish the essential elements of kidnapping and non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The Court emphasized that convictions cannot stand on doubtful evidence, particularly when the victim's testimony indicates voluntariness and is contradicted by medical findings.

---

Background of the Case

Firoj Vaishnav was convicted by a Special POCSO Court in Raipur under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 4(2) and 6 (penetrative and aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offences.

The case began on July 21, 2021, when the victim's mother reported her missing. The girl was recovered two months later, on September 23, 2021. She alleged that the appellant, Firoj Vaishnav, had lured her away and repeatedly had forcible physical relations with her. The trial court, relying on her statement and school records, convicted Vaishnav.

Arguments Before the High Court

• Appellant's Counsel (Ms. Anjali Pradhan): Argued that Vaishnav was falsely implicated. The primary contention was that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. It was further argued that there were material contradictions in witness statements and no evidence of coercion.

• State's Counsel (Mr. Sakib Ahmad): Defended the trial court's judgment, submitting that the conviction was well-merited and supported by clear evidence regarding the victim's age.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence on three key questions: kidnapping, the victim's age, and the alleged sexual assault.

1. No Evidence of "Taking" or "Enticing" for Kidnapping

The bench found that the essential ingredients of kidnapping under Section 361 of the IPC were not met. The court noted from the victim's own testimony:

"...she candidly admits that on the morning of October 1st, she herself telephoned to the appellant to meet her in his car at a certain place, went up to that place and finding him waiting in the car got into that car of her own accord... She willingly accompanied him and the law did not cast upon him the duty of taking her back to her father's house..."

The Court concluded there was no evidence that the appellant "solicited or lured or induced or enticed the victim." Since she went of her own will, the act did not constitute "taking" from lawful guardianship. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were deemed unjustified.

2. Prosecution Failed to Prove Victim was a Minor

The Court held the evidence on the victim’s age to be unreliable.

- The school's Head Master (PW-5) admitted that the date of birth in the admission register was recorded based on oral information from the parents, without any supporting documents.

- The victim's parents (PW-2 and PW-3) stated they did not remember her exact date of birth and gave an approximate age of 17.

Citing Supreme Court precedents like P. Yuvaprakash vs. State and Alamelu vs. State , the High Court reiterated that school records lack evidentiary value unless the basis for the entry is proven. The judgment stated:

"...in absence of cogent proof regarding the date of birth of the victim, the finding of the learned trial Court that the victim was a minor on the date of incident cannot be acceptable."

3. Victim a Consenting Party; Medical Evidence Contradicts Rape Claim

The Court raised serious doubts about the allegation of forcible sexual assault. It observed that the victim’s conduct—willingly meeting the accused, having prior phone contact, and not raising an alarm despite opportunities—indicated consent.

Crucially, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case.

- The doctor (PW-4) found no external or internal injuries on the victim's body or genital area.

- The FSL report found no presence of sperm on the victim's belongings.

The Court observed:

"These medical findings clearly indicate the absence of any physical evidence of rape or sexual violence at the time of examination, thereby weakening the prosecution’s claim of forcible sexual intercourse."

Final Verdict

Finding the prosecution's case riddled with doubt and lacking credible proof on all key charges, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Firoj Vaishnav.

The judgment concluded, "it is manifest that the case of the prosecution does not conclusively connect the appellant with the alleged offence and creates doubt regarding the prosecution version, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt."

Firoj Vaishnav, who was in jail, has been ordered to be released forthwith.