School Records Insufficient to Prove Victim's Minority Under POCSO Act Without Foundational Evidence: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-09-15

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Citing Failure to Conclusively Prove Victim's Age

Bilaspur, CG – The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has acquitted Rekhram Thakur of all charges, including aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act, overturning a trial court's conviction that had sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.

Case Background

The appeal was filed by Rekhram Thakur against the judgment of the Additional Session Judge, First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, dated February 15, 2024. The trial court had convicted Thakur under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage), and 376(3) (rape of a minor under 16) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution's case originated from a report filed on November 30, 2021, by the victim's father, stating his 15-year-old daughter had gone missing. The investigation led to the appellant, Rekhram Thakur, who was accused of luring the girl with a promise of marriage and committing repeated sexual assault.

Key Arguments in Court

Appellant's Contentions: The defense counsel, Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, argued that the prosecution's case was built on weak evidence and riddled with contradictions. The primary challenge was to the victim's age, which the defense claimed was not proven. The counsel pointed out that the Headmaster (PW-3), who presented the school's Admission-Discharge Register, admitted during cross-examination that he was not the author of the entry and did not know the basis on which the date of birth was recorded. The defense also highlighted inconsistencies in the victim's statements and her failure to raise an alarm despite having opportunities, suggesting a consensual relationship.

State's Submissions: The State, represented by Mr. Malay Jain, defended the trial court's decision, arguing that the offenses were heinous and the conviction was well-founded. The State counsel contended that the victim's testimony was reliable and sufficient for conviction, and that the school records adequately established her minority.

Legal Principles and Precedents Applied

The High Court's decision hinged on the evidentiary value of school records for age determination. The bench meticulously analyzed Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the relevancy of entries in public records.

Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP and Alamelu and Another Vs. State , the court emphasized a crucial legal principle:

"An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded."

The court noted that the prosecution failed to produce any foundational document, such as a birth certificate from a municipal authority or Panchayat, upon which the school entry was based.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court's reasoning was clearly articulated in its final analysis. The bench observed:

"After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, it emerges that the prosecution has not produced clinching and legally admissible evidence with respect to the date of birth or age of the victim so as to hold that she was a minor, below 18 years of age, on the date of the incident."

Furthermore, the court cast doubt on the narrative of coercion, stating:

"The victim did not raise any alarm during the alleged incident, even though she claims to have stayed with the appellant/accused overnight in an open field. This conduct is inconsistent with the normal course of human behavior if the act was against her will."

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The judgment stated, "The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2024 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him."

The court ordered the immediate release of Rekhram Thakur, directing him to furnish a personal bond under Section 437-A of the CrPC. This ruling underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, particularly under the stringent POCSO Act, and reaffirms that convictions cannot be sustained on evidence that lacks a verifiable and legally admissible foundation.