The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that no clinching or legally admissible evidence had been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident.
The judgment was delivered while allowing an appeal against the conviction and sentencing order dated 18.04.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), in Special POCSO Case, where the appellant had been convicted and sentenced.
Brief Facts:
The father of the prosecutrix made a written report to the Police Station that his minor daughter had gone missing and he made an allegation against the appellant that he visited the house 2 to 3 times and he was asked not to come. FIR was registered. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for an offense under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 4 6 of the POCSO Act.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is no legally admissible evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix that on the date of the incident, she was a minor and less than 18 years of age. In the absence of an examination of the author of the dakhil-kharij register, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the determination of the age of the prosecutrix.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the prosecutrix was minor and below 18 years of age at the time of the incident, which is proved by the School dakhil-kharij register which contains the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 17.05.2007. The dakhil-kharij register is an admissible piece of evidence to determine the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that no clinching or legally admissible evidence had been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident.
The Court observed that only on the basis of the school dakhil-kharij register it would not be safe to hold that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident. The Court said that in the case of rape, the conviction can be maintained even on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the prosecutrix is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the impugned judgment and conviction and order of sentence dated 18.04.2024 is set aside.
Case Title: Surendra Chouhan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ramesh Sinha
Case No.:CRA No. 1701 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Swajit Uboweja
Picture Source :
