[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Virendra Kumar Sonkar @ Chotu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17954-DB
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed by
MANPREET KAUR
NAFR
Date: 2026.04.22
14:28:28 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 607 of 2025
Virendra Kumar Sonkar @ Chotu S/o Sudama Sonkar Age 18 Years 10
Months R/o Baijnathpara, P.S. Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Ps Durg Kotwali Distt. Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ
20.04.2026
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Fourth (F.T.C.), Special Judge, Durg, District- Durg in
Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No. 111/2022, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter called as 'POSCO') and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.07.2022, the mother
of the victim (PW-2) lodged a written complaint at Police Station-
City Kotwali, District- Durg, stating that her daughter, born on
15.06.2005, had been experiencing abnormal physical changes.
Upon medical examination by a lady doctor, it was disclosed that
the victim was pregnant. On being questioned, the victim revealed
that the appellant, a resident of the same locality, had established
acquaintance with her and, on the pretext of marriage, subjected
her to repeated sexual assault on 30.11.2021 and 01.12.2021.
3. On the basis of the said complaint (Ex.P-05), FIR bearing Crime
No. 849/2022 was registered against the appellant for offences
punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, and investigation was set into motion.
4. During the course of investigation, the victim was medically
examined after obtaining due consent of her as well as her
mother. The medical examination report (Ex.P-23) was obtained
from the District Hospital, Durg. Documentary evidence regarding
the age of the victim, including her birth certificate reflecting her
date of birth as 15.06.2005 and school records, were seized vide
Ex.P-09, thereby establishing that she was a minor at the time of
the incident.
5. Further, documents pertaining to the pregnancy of the victim,
including sonography reports and treatment records, were seized
vide Ex.P-10. The investigating officer prepared the spot map
(Ex.P-02), and a Patwari map (Ex.P-08) was also obtained for
corroboration.
6. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate
(Ex.P-03), wherein she reiterated the allegations against the
appellant. Statements of other material witnesses, including the
parents of the victim and medical experts, were recorded during
investigation.
7. The appellant was arrested on 28.07.2022 (Ex.P-13), and his
medical examination was conducted, including potency test (Ex.P-
22). His date of birth was also collected during investigation.
8. Significantly, during trial, pursuant to directions of the Court, blood
samples of the victim, the appellant, and the child born to the
victim were collected and sent for DNA examination. The DNA
report (Ex.P-42) received from the State Forensic Science
Laboratory, Raipur, forms a crucial piece of scientific evidence on
record.
9. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
the Special Court, and the case was committed for trial. The
prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, including the
victim (PW-1), her parents (PW-2 and PW-3), medical experts,
and investigating officers. The appellant, in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating circumstances and
did not lead any defence evidence
10. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned
trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced
him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
11. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant assails
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as
being perverse, legally unsustainable, and contrary to the settled
principles of criminal jurisprudence, contending that the learned
trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record
and has erroneously convicted the appellant without the
prosecution having established the foundational ingredients of the
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the
relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that
the entire prosecution case is riddled with inconsistencies and
improbabilities and falls short of the standard of proof required in
criminal law, where conviction cannot be based on mere
preponderance of probabilities. It is further contended that the FIR
has been lodged with mala fide intent and ulterior motives,
allegedly under external pressure, and thus the proceedings stand
vitiated. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon judicial
precedents governing abuse of criminal process. Learned counsel
further emphasizes that the DNA report on record does not
establish the appellant to be the biological father of the child born
to the victim, thereby seriously denting the prosecution case and
rendering the allegations doubtful. It is also urged that the
appellant and the victim were in a consensual relationship, being
neighbours and of comparable age, and that the allegations have
been falsely exaggerated. Placing reliance on the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad v. State
of Bihar ((2020) 3 SCC 443)and Krishan Kumar Malik v. State
of Haryana ((2011) 7 SCC 130), it is argued that conviction
cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of the victim unless it
is of sterling and unimpeachable quality, which, according to the
appellant, is not the case herein, particularly when medical and
forensic evidence do not corroborate the prosecution version. It is
further contended that material procedural lapses and
investigative deficiencies, including discrepancies in the crime
detail form and alleged irregularities in preparation of site-related
documents, create serious doubt about the veracity of the
prosecution case. Lastly, it is urged that the learned trial Court has
acted with undue haste in passing the order of sentence on the
same day without affording adequate opportunity to the appellant,
thereby causing prejudice and vitiating the sentencing process.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further assailed the finding
of minority of the victim by contending that the reliance placed by
the learned trial Court on the birth certificate (Ex.P-12) is wholly
misplaced and legally unsustainable. It is submitted that the said
document was exhibited through PW-3, the father of the victim,
who in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the
victim was not born in District Durg but in the State of Bihar. It is
further pointed out that the birth of the victim was registered
belatedly on 23.05.2012, nearly seven years after the alleged date
of birth (15.06.2005), and the certificate itself was issued much
later on 29.12.2017. The witness has also admitted that the birth
certificate was prepared on the basis of a receipt allegedly issued
by District Hospital, Durg, despite acknowledging that the victim
was not born there, thereby creating a serious contradiction and
casting doubt on the authenticity of the document.
13. Learned counsel submits that though a birth certificate ordinarily
constitutes a reliable piece of evidence for determination of age,
the same must satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed
under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Particular
emphasis is laid upon Section 13(3) of the said Act, which
mandates that any birth not registered within one year of its
occurrence can only be registered upon an order passed by a
Magistrate of the First Class after due verification. It is contended
that in the present case, there is no material on record to
demonstrate compliance with the mandatory procedure under
Section 13(3), especially the requirement of obtaining prior judicial
authorization for such delayed registration.
14. In view of the unexplained and inordinate delay of seven years in
registration, the contradictions regarding the place of birth, and
the absence of proof of compliance with statutory requirements, it
is urged that the birth certificate (Ex.P-12) becomes highly
doubtful and unreliable. Consequently, the prosecution has failed
to conclusively establish that the victim was a minor at the
relevant time, and therefore, the foundational premise of the
conviction under the provisions of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 stands vitiated.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and
submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed the
conduct of the appellant in her statement and the learned trial
Court after considering the material available on record has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is
called for.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record with utmost circumspection.
17. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is
whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves
acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case
of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
18. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of
the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in
cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments
and has held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found
reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and
that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such
nature deserves acceptance.
19. The next and a foundational issue which arises for determination
in the present appeal is whether the victim was below 18 years of
age on the date of the incident. The answer to this issue is
determinative, as the applicability of the stringent provisions of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 hinges
upon the minority of the victim.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that
the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish the age of the
victim. It is urged that the birth certificate (Ex.P-12), heavily relied
upon by the trial Court, is rendered doubtful on account of (i)
inordinate delay of about seven years in its registration, (ii)
contradictions in the testimony of PW-3 regarding the place of
birth, and (iii) alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements
governing delayed registration. It is further contended that the
school admission register (Ex.P-17) does not disclose the source
of the date of birth and, therefore, lacks evidentiary value in light
of settled legal principles.
21. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that the age of the victim stands duly
proved by consistent and cogent oral as well as documentary
evidence. It is argued that the alleged delay in registration does
not, by itself, discredit the birth certificate, particularly when the
same is corroborated by parental testimony and
contemporaneous school records.
22. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is apposite to refer to the
settled legal position governing determination of age. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013 SCC
OnLine SC 507) has laid down a structured hierarchy of
evidence, giving primacy to documentary proof such as
matriculation certificates, school records, and birth certificates
issued by statutory authorities, and resorting to medical opinion
only in their absence. The underlying principle is that
documentary evidence, if found reliable, should ordinarily prevail.
23. In the case at hand, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the
birth certificate (Ex.P-12), which records the date of birth of the
victim as 15.06.2005. The said document was seized during
investigation vide Ex.P-9 and has been duly proved through the
testimony of PW-2 (mother) and PW-3 (father). The seizure and
production of this document have not been seriously challenged in
cross-examination.
24. The principal attack of the appellant is on the delayed registration
of the birth certificate. It is true that the registration of birth has
been effected after a lapse of several years. However, it is well
settled that delay in registration of birth is not uncommon in rural
and semi-urban settings and cannot, in isolation, be a ground to
discard the document, unless accompanied by circumstances
indicating fabrication or manipulation. In the present case, no
such circumstance has been brought on record.
25. It is also significant that the birth certificate (Ex.P-12) came into
existence much prior to the date of the incident in question. Thus,
the possibility of its creation with an oblique motive to falsely
implicate the appellant or to bring the case within the ambit of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 stands
effectively ruled out.
26. The contention regarding non-compliance with the procedure
prescribed for delayed registration also does not carry the
appellant's case any further. The appellant has not led any
evidence to demonstrate that the certificate is forged or that it was
not issued by a competent authority. In absence of such
foundational challenge, the document cannot be discarded merely
on technical grounds.
27. As regards the discrepancy pointed out in the testimony of PW-3
regarding the place of birth, this Court is of the considered view
that such inconsistency does not go to the root of the matter. The
crucial aspect is the date of birth, and not the exact place where
the birth occurred. Minor inconsistencies of this nature are natural
and do not affect the core of the prosecution case.
28. In addition to the birth certificate, the prosecution has also relied
upon the school admission register (Ex.P-17), wherein the date of
birth of the victim is recorded as 15.06.2005. The said document
has been proved by PW-5, the Headmaster, who produced the
original register before the Court. Though it has been elicited in
cross-examination that the source of the date of birth is not
mentioned, the entry nonetheless constitutes a relevant piece of
evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
29. The judgments relied upon by the appellant, including Sunder Lal
@ Pappu @ Vishal Vs. State of Chhattiasgarh (CRA No. 352 of
2024), Ramesh Vishwakarma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No.
1387 of 2024), Sadanand Paikra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024
SCC OnLine Chh 3805) and Moneshwar Alias Rinku Kumar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh (2026 SCC OnLine Chh 1946), lay down
that school records, in absence of foundational evidence, may
have limited probative value. However, in the present case, the
school record is not being considered in isolation but stands
corroborated by the birth certificate and the oral testimony of the
parents.
30. It is pertinent to note that the father of the victim (PW-3) has
categorically deposed that the date of birth of the victim is
15.06.2005. No suggestion has been put to him in cross-
examination that the said date is incorrect. Similarly, the victim
(PW-1) herself has stated her date of birth consistently, and her
testimony on this aspect has remained unshaken.
31. The parents are the most natural and competent witnesses to
depose regarding the age of their child. In the absence of any
material contradiction or evidence to the contrary, their testimony
cannot be lightly discarded.
32. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence on record, this Court
finds that the birth certificate (Ex.P-12), the school record (Ex.P-
17), and the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 form a consistent
and reliable chain of evidence establishing the date of birth of the
victim as 15.06.2005.
33. Consequently, on the date of the incident i.e. 30.11.2021, the
victim was aged about 16 years and 5 months, and was thus
clearly below 18 years of age.
34. Once the minority of the victim stands established, the plea of
consensual relationship, as sought to be raised by the appellant,
becomes legally untenable. The statutory scheme under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 renders
consent of a minor wholly irrelevant.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in
the finding recorded by the learned trial Court regarding the age of
the victim. The same is hereby affirmed, and the contention raised
by the appellant stands rejected.
36. The next question that arises for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the appellant, on the intervening night of
30.11.2021 and 01.12.2021, at the place of occurrence as
mentioned in the First Information Report, committed sexual
assault upon the victim, who has been held to be a minor, and
whether such act amounts to the offences punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
37. In this regard, the victim (PW-1) is the central witness, and her
testimony forms the substratum of the prosecution case. She has
deposed that she came into contact with the appellant through his
sister and that conversations between them were facilitated
through the said intermediary. She has further stated that on the
intervening night of 30.11.2021, at about 11:00-11:30 PM, the
appellant called her to his residence through his sister, where,
after expressing affection and assurance of marriage, he
established physical relations with her.
38. The victim has further deposed that on the very next day, i.e.,
01.12.2021, she again went to the house of the appellant on being
called, where the appellant repeated the act under the same
assurance. She has categorically stated that thereafter
communication between them gradually ceased.
39. The victim has also deposed that after some time she noticed
cessation of menstruation and, in July 2022, informed her mother
about the same, upon which she was taken for medical
examination, leading to the revelation of her pregnancy. She
thereafter disclosed to her parents that the appellant was
responsible for the same. The victim has reiterated the above
facts in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-
03), thereby lending contemporaneous assurance to her
testimony before the Court.
40. In cross-examination, the victim has admitted that she went to the
house of the appellant at night and that her family members were
unaware of her movements at that time. However, she has
categorically denied the suggestion that no such incident took
place or that she has falsely implicated the appellant.
41. Minor inconsistencies, such as variation in dates or confusion in
recalling the exact sequence of events, have been explained as
being due to lapse of time. Such discrepancies are neither
material nor sufficient to discredit her testimony.
42. This Court finds that the testimony of PW-1 is natural, consistent,
and free from material embellishment, and there is no reason to
discard the same.
43. The mother of the victim (PW-2) has deposed that upon noticing
that the victim had not menstruated and was experiencing
physical discomfort, she took her for medical examination, where
it was revealed that she was pregnant.
44. PW-2 has further stated that upon inquiry, the vicitim disclosed
that the appellant had established physical relations with her on
the pretext of marriage. She has proved the written complaint
(Ex.P-05) lodged before Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, leading
to registration of FIR (Ex.P-06). She has also proved seizure of
documents relating to pregnancy, including treatment slips and
sonography reports, vide seizure memo (Ex.P-10), and
documents relating to age, vide (Ex.P-09).
45. In cross-examination, her testimony has remained intact, and no
material contradiction has been elicited. Her evidence provides
immediate post-occurrence disclosure, which is a strong
corroborative circumstance under the Evidence Act.
46. The father of the victim (PW-3) has corroborated the version of
PW-2 and has further deposed that upon learning about the
pregnancy, the appellant and his family were called for discussion.
He has stated that the appellant's family suggested DNA testing
and indicated that they would accept responsibility only if the
report was positive. This conduct has been admitted by the
appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
47. PW-3 has also proved the birth certificate (Ex.P-12) and
supported the seizure of relevant documents. Though he has
admitted delay in registration, no suggestion has been put
disputing the correctness of the date of birth.
48. His testimony lends circumstantial corroboration and reflects the
conduct of the accused, which is relevant under Sections 7 and 8
of the Evidence Act.
49. Dr. Jyoti Gurubaxani (PW-10) has deposed that on 26.07.2022,
the victim was brought for examination and was found to be
pregnant. He has proved the treatment slip (Ex.P-24) and advised
sonography.
50. Radiologist Dr. Yankit Jain (PW-7) has proved sonography report
(Ex.P-20) and film (Ex.P-21), indicating that the victim was
approximately 33 weeks pregnant with a live fetus.
51. Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW-6) has also conducted sonography and proved
report (Ex.P-19), confirming pregnancy of 32 weeks and 06 days,
with estimated delivery date.
52. Dr. Sheetal Soni (PW-9), who conducted medical examination,
has proved report (Ex.P-23), confirming pregnancy of 30-32
weeks. She has stated that no fresh injuries were found, which is
natural considering the time gap between incident and
examination.
53. Though the victim did not disclose the incident to the doctors,
such non-disclosure does not weaken the prosecution case,
particularly when she is a minor and disclosure occurred within
the family context.
54. The medical evidence, therefore, fully corroborates the
occurrence of sexual intercourse within the relevant timeframe.
55. Dr. Kalyan Kumar Singha (PW-8) has examined the appellant and
proved report (Ex.P-22), confirming that he is capable of
performing sexual intercourse. This finding has not been
challenged.
56. Now coming to the DNA evidence, the DNA report (Ex.P-42),
proved through PW-12, indicates that the appellant is not the
biological father of the child.
57. However, it is pertinent to note that the victim underwent blood
transfusion prior to delivery and the DNA sampling was conducted
thereafter and also, the doctor who collected the sample was not
examined.
58. Even otherwise, DNA evidence pertains to paternity and not to the
occurrence of sexual assault. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 393, such evidence is only
corroborative. Relevant paras of the judgment are as under:
"4. From the provisions of Section 53-A of the Code
and the decision of this Court in Krishan Kumar
[Krishan Kumar Malik V. State of Haryana, (2011) 7
SCC 130 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 61 ) it does not follow
that failure to conduct the DNA test of the samples
taken from the accused or prove the report of DNA
profiling as in the present case would necessarily result
in the failure of the prosecution case. As held in
Krishan Kumar [Krishan Kumar Malik V. State of
Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 61 ]
(para 44), Section 53-A really "facilitates the
prosecution to prove its case". A positive result of
the DNA test would constitute clinching evidence
against the accused if, however, the result of the
test is in the negative l.e. favouring the accused or
if DNA profiling had not been done in a given case,
the weight of the other materials and evidence on
record will still have to be considered. It is to the
other materials brought on record by the
prosecution that we may now turn to."
Therefore, the negative DNA report does not demolish the
otherwise consistent prosecution case.
59. Investigating Officer Saroj Chaware (PW-11) has proved FIR
(Ex.P-06), site map (Ex.P-02), and seizure memos (Ex.P-09,
Ex.P-10). His testimony establishes proper investigation. Patwari
T.R. Sarve (PW-4) has proved the site map (Ex.P-08), confirming
the place of occurrence inside the house of the appellant. PW-12
has proved the chain of custody for DNA samples (Ex.P-39, Ex.P-
40, Ex.P-41).
60. The delay in lodging FIR is fully explained. The victim, being a
minor, did not immediately disclose the incident. The matter came
to light only upon detection of pregnancy. However, it is settled
law that delay in such cases is not fatal, particularly when
satisfactorily explained.
61. The defence suggestion that the victim was a consenting party is
devoid of legal merit, as she has already been held to be a minor.
Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
consent of a minor is immaterial and cannot absolve the accused.
62. Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 raises a presumption of guilt once foundational facts are
established. The appellant has failed to rebut this presumption
either through cross-examination or by leading defence evidence.
63. From the cumulative appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-
12 and the exhibits proved on record, the following facts stand
established:
A). The victim was pregnant, as proved by medical
evidence (Ex.P-19, Ex.P-20, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24).
B). The victim has consistently attributed the acts to the
appellant (Ex.P-03, testimony PW-1).
C). Her testimony stands corroborated by her parents (PW-
2, PW-3).
D). The place of occurrence is duly established (Ex.P-02,
Ex.P-08).
E). The appellant has not led any defence evidence nor
rebutted the statutory presumption.
64. Upon a comprehensive and cumulative appreciation of the entire
oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court
finds that the prosecution has successfully established a coherent
and credible chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of
the appellant. The testimony of the victim (PW-1) remains the
cornerstone of the prosecution case, which is not only consistent
and cogent but also inspires confidence. Her version is duly
corroborated by the testimony of her parents (PW-2 and PW-3),
medical evidence (Ex.P-19, Ex.P-20, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24), and
surrounding circumstances.
65. The defence has failed to elicit any material contradiction or
inconsistency in the cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses that would shake the substratum of the prosecution
case. Minor discrepancies, if any, are natural and do not go to the
root of the matter. It is well settled that trivial inconsistencies
cannot be a ground to discard otherwise reliable testimony.
66. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant
relates to the negative DNA report (Ex.P-42), which indicates that
the appellant is not the biological father of the child born to the
victim. While this Court takes note of the said report, it is equally
well settled that DNA evidence is primarily relevant for
establishing paternity and does not, in itself, negate the
occurrence of sexual intercourse.
67. More importantly, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), DNA
evidence is merely corroborative in nature. A negative DNA report
cannot override direct, reliable, and trustworthy ocular evidence,
particularly the testimony of the victim, which stands unshaken.
68. The contention regarding delay in lodging the First Information
Report also does not merit acceptance. The victim, being a minor
girl, did not immediately disclose the incident. The matter came to
light only when her pregnancy was detected in July 2022.
69. It is a settled principle of law that in cases of sexual offences,
delay in reporting is not uncommon due to social stigma, fear, and
trauma. Once the delay is satisfactorily explained, it cannot be
used to discredit the prosecution case. In the present case, the
explanation furnished is natural, plausible, and acceptable.
70. The defence has attempted to suggest that the victim was a
consenting party. However, this argument is legally untenable in
view of the categorical finding that the victim was below 18 years
of age at the time of the incident.
71. Under the scheme of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, consent of a minor is wholly irrelevant. Even
assuming that the victim accompanied the appellant voluntarily,
such consent would not absolve the appellant of criminal liability.
72. Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 mandates that once foundational facts are established, the
Court shall presume that the accused has committed the offence
unless the contrary is proved.
73. Similarly, Section 30 raises a presumption regarding the existence
of culpable mental state on the part of the accused.
74. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully established
foundational facts, including the age of the victim, occurrence of
sexual intercourse, and involvement of the appellant. The
appellant has failed to rebut these statutory presumptions either
through effective cross-examination or by leading defence
evidence.
75. The victim (PW-1) has made consistent statements before the
police, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-03), and before the Court.
There is no material contradiction affecting her credibility. The
testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 provides immediate disclosure and
corroboration, which is admissible under Sections 7 and 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The medical witnesses (PW-6, PW-7, PW-9,
PW-10) have conclusively proved pregnancy within the relevant
period, which supports the victim's version. The Investigating
Officers (PW-11 and PW-12) have established proper
investigation, seizure of documents, and chain of custody of
exhibits.
76. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court records the
following findings:
(i) The victim was a minor, aged about 16 years
and 5 months at the time of the incident.
(ii) The appellant established physical relations
with the victim on the pretext of marriage on the
intervening night of 30.11.2021 and 01.12.2021.
(iii) The testimony of the victim is reliable,
trustworthy, and duly corroborated by medical and
circumstantial evidence.
(iv) The negative DNA report does not demolish
the prosecution case.
(v) The delay in lodging the FIR stands
satisfactorily explained.
(vi) The statutory presumptions under Sections 29
and 30 of the POCSO Act operate against the
appellant and remain unrebutted.
77. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court. The appreciation of evidence
by the trial Court is proper, and the conclusions drawn are well-
founded. The prosecution has proved the charges against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal
being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is hereby
affirmed. The appellant shall continue to undergo the sentence as
awarded by the learned trial Court.
78. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out
the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.
79. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to
the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
80. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is
undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant
informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment
passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services
Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
