The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a conviction under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC after holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offences. The judgment underscores the indispensable requirement of reliable documentary proof in cases where minority is a foundational element of the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Hemant Kumar Deshlahre, was convicted by the Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Balod, for offences under Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 366 (inducing a woman to compel her for illicit intercourse), and Section 376 (rape) of the IPC. The prosecution's case hinged on the assertion that the victim, born on 22.07.1999, was below 18 years of age during the alleged incidents in 2015-2016, thereby triggering the aggravated nature of the offences under Section 376 IPC.
Key Facts
- The victim was born on 22.07.1999, according to her own statement and school records.
- She was studying in Class 11th at a hostel in village Dundi during the relevant period.
- The appellant allegedly contacted her in August 2015, expressed intent to marry her, and was informed she was a minor.
- In February 2016, the appellant took the victim to Bandhiyapara, Dundi, where physical relations were allegedly established.
- The victim was later taken to Bhopal, staying in rented accommodation for 15 days, then to Umarpoti for 10 days, and returned to her parental home on 03.05.2016.
- On 05.05.2016, the appellant came to the victim’s house, and with her parents’ knowledge, took her away again.
- A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 05.05.2016 (Exhibit P-2) based on a written complaint by the victim’s father, PW-1 Sonu Ram.
- School records (Exhibit A and B) recorded the victim’s date of birth as 22.07.1999.
- A radiological age estimation report (Exhibit P-9) assessed the victim’s age as between 16 to 18 years.
- Forensic reports (Exhibit P-25) confirmed presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa on the victim’s garments.
- The victim admitted in cross-examination to voluntary association with the appellant, multiple trips with him, and failure to disclose alleged acts to family or authorities.
- The victim and her father had previously approached the police in March 2016, were counselled, and allowed to separate without registration of a case.
Procedural History
- 05.05.2016: FIR registered at Police Station Rajhara, District Balod.
- 24.01.2017: Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC, 7 years under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, all to run concurrently, with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
- 24.01.2017: Sentence imposed; appellant granted bail.
- 2017: Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2017 filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 05.05.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: Contended that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt. Highlighted material contradictions in the victim’s testimony, her voluntary association with the accused, prior police intervention, and absence of any contemporaneous birth certificate. Argued that the school records lacked foundational proof and the radiological estimate was inconclusive.
For the Respondent: Maintained that the victim’s age was established through school records, parental testimony, and medical opinion. Argued that the victim’s delayed complaint was explainable due to fear and social stigma, and that the forensic evidence corroborated the occurrence of sexual intercourse.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, release from all penal consequences, and discharge of bail bonds. The State sought dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the trial court’s judgment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offences, and whether the absence of reliable documentary proof, coupled with material inconsistencies in testimony, vitiates a conviction under Section 376 IPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. and Alamelu v. State to argue that school records, without proof of the basis on which the date of birth was recorded, have negligible evidentiary value. Emphasized that the radiological report gave a range of 16 - 18 years, and under settled law, the benefit of such margin must go to the accused. Highlighted the victim’s voluntary conduct, failure to report, and prior police mediation as undermining the claim of force or coercion.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the cumulative evidence - school records, parental testimony, and forensic reports - was sufficient to establish minority. Argued that the victim’s delayed disclosure was consistent with trauma and societal pressure, and that the inconsistencies in her testimony were minor and immaterial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence concerning the victim’s age, noting that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on proving her minority. The school records, though admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, were found to be devoid of any foundational proof. PW-4, the school official, admitted he had no personal knowledge of how the date of birth was entered. The Court held that such entries, without verification of the source, cannot be relied upon to establish a fact critical to criminal liability.
"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 radiological report, which estimated the victim’s age between 16 and 18 years, was deemed inconclusive. The Court reiterated that where a margin of error exists, the benefit must accrue to the accused. The testimonies of the parents were found to be vague - the father gave no specific date, and the mother only stated the year 1999.
The Court further examined the victim’s conduct. She admitted to voluntarily accompanying the appellant, staying with him for weeks, travelling to Bhopal, and not disclosing the alleged acts to her family or authorities. The prior police intervention in March 2016, where both parties were counselled and allowed to separate, further weakened the claim of abduction or coercion.
The forensic evidence, while confirming sexual intercourse, did not establish non-consent. The Court held that medical evidence alone cannot substitute for proof of the circumstances surrounding the act. The victim’s inconsistent statements between her Section 164 CrPC statement and trial testimony further eroded credibility.
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the offences under Section 376 IPC could not be sustained, as the statutory requirement of the victim being a minor was not met. The conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC also collapsed, as they were predicated on the same factual premise.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The judgment and sentence dated 24.01.2017 were set aside. The appellant, already on bail, need not surrender. His bail bonds remain in force for six months from the date of judgment, with an undertaking that he shall appear before the Supreme Court if a Special Leave Petition is filed. The trial court record and a copy of this judgment are to be returned immediately for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Proof of Age Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must ensure that in cases involving minors, birth certificates or school records with verifiable entry sources are produced.
- Relying solely on school registers without proof of how the date of birth was recorded will not suffice - Ravinder Singh Gorkhi and Alamelu are binding precedents.
- Medical age estimation reports with margins of error must be treated as indicative, not conclusive.
Conduct of the Victim Can Undermine Prosecution
- Voluntary association, prolonged cohabitation, and failure to report to family or authorities may raise reasonable doubt about non-consent.
- Prior mediation or informal police intervention without formal complaint weakens the narrative of sudden victimization.
- Delayed disclosure, while understandable, must be weighed against the victim’s conduct during the period of alleged abuse.
Forensic Evidence Alone Is Insufficient
- Semen or spermatozoa evidence confirms physical contact but not criminal intent or lack of consent.
- Prosecution must establish the context of the act through credible, consistent, and corroborated testimony.
- Courts will not convict on medical evidence alone when the surrounding circumstances create doubt.
