School Register Alone Insufficient to Prove Minority in Sexual Offence Cases: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused Citing Lack of Evidence - 2025-04-03

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Sexual Assault Case, Emphasizing Need for Conclusive Age Proof and Credible Testimony

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , has overturned a trial court's conviction in a sexual assault case, acquitting two appellants, Chiranjeet Dholai and Meena @ Chhoti Mathur . The High Court, in its ruling dated February 20, 2025, emphasized that a school admission register alone is not sufficient conclusive evidence to determine the minority of a victim in such cases. The court further highlighted inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the victim's testimony, leading to the acquittal based on benefit of doubt.

Case Overview: Enticement and Alleged Sexual Assault

The case originated from a complaint filed in Akaltara Police Station concerning the disappearance of a 13-year-old girl in December 2021. Following investigation, Chiranjeet Dholai and Meena @ Chhoti Mathur were accused. The prosecution's case rested on allegations that Dholai enticed and abducted the minor victim, keeping her in illegal confinement and committing sexual assault. Mathur was accused of aiding in the initial abduction.

The trial court, in its judgment dated September 11, 2023, convicted Chiranjeet Dholai under Sections 363/34 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage), 376(2)(n) (rape by a public servant or member of the armed forces etc.) and 376(3) (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment including life imprisonment for the latter charge. Meena @ Chhoti Mathur was convicted under Sections 363/34 and 366-A (procuration of minor girl) of the IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.

Arguments Presented Before the High Court

Appearing for Chiranjeet Dholai , Advocate Ravindra Sharma argued that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the school admission register, the primary age proof presented, was weak evidence without supporting documents like birth certificates or ossification reports. Sharma also pointed to inconsistencies in the victim's statement, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of medical evidence corroborating sexual assault. He cited the Supreme Court judgment in Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan vs The State Of Odisha (2018 AIR SC 4020) to support his arguments regarding the evaluation of victim's testimony.

Advocate Vivek Singhal, representing Meena @ Chhoti Mathur , argued that there was no evidence of her active participation in the alleged offences beyond accompanying the victim initially. He claimed the prosecution failed to prove its case against her beyond reasonable doubt.

The State, represented by Panel Lawyer Shailendra Sharma , maintained that the school register and the victim's statement sufficiently proved her minority. They argued that both accused were involved in the abduction and illegal confinement, and Dholai committed sexual assault.

High Court's Observations and Legal Precedents

The High Court scrutinized the evidence concerning the victim's age, noting the prosecution heavily relied on the school admission register. The court referred to several Supreme Court precedents, including Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP (2006 (5) SCC 584), Alamelu and Another Vs. State (2011(2) SCC 385), Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2022 (8) SCC 602), and P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2023 SCC Online SC 846), emphasizing that while school records are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, they hold limited evidentiary value without the foundational material upon which the age entry is based.

The court observed:

> "After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, it emerges that the prosecution could not produce the clinching and legally admissible evidence with respect to the date of birth or age of the victim so as to hold that on the date of incident she was minor and below 18 years of age. Only on the basis of school admission and discharge register it would not be safe to hold that the victim was minor on the date of incident."

Regarding the allegations of sexual assault, the High Court analyzed the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC and in court, pointing out "lot of contradictions and omissions" that did not inspire confidence. The medical evidence, it noted, did not provide a definitive opinion on recent sexual intercourse and found semen on the victim’s underwear but not vaginal slides.

Citing Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan , the court reiterated that while the testimony of a prosecutrix is valuable, it must be credible and consistent. In this case, the court found the victim's testimony lacking credibility and noted her failure to raise alarm during her travels, suggesting a lack of force or coercion.

> "The testimony of the victim is full of inconsistencies and does not find support from any other evidence whatsoever... the medical record and the Doctor’s evidence do not specify whether there were any signs of forcible sexual intercourse."

Final Verdict and Implications

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both appellants. It allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted Chiranjeet Dholai and Meena @ Chhoti Mathur of all charges. Dholai , who was in jail, was ordered to be released immediately, while Mathur , already on bail, had her bail bonds cancelled.

The judgment underscores the critical importance of robust evidence, particularly regarding the victim's age in cases under the POCSO Act and related IPC sections. It reiterates that school records alone may not suffice to prove minority and highlights the necessity for credible and consistent victim testimony, corroborated by medical evidence where applicable, to secure convictions in sexual offence cases. The ruling serves as a reminder for prosecutors to present comprehensive and legally sound evidence to meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials.