Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man In Rape Case: School Register Didn’t Prove Victim Was A Minor, And She Denied Rape

The prosecution alleged that the appellant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the victim, beginning in March 2020, and that she became pregnant.

The trial court convicted him under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), read with Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting him of charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506(ii) IPC

The prosecution relied on a school Dakhil Kharij Register recording the victim’s date of birth as 7 May 2006 and a DNA report identifying the appellant as the child’s biological father

On appeal, the appellant disputed proof of the victim’s age and the sufficiency of the evidence of rape.

The victim and her parents did not support the prosecution case at trial; the victim stated that she was born in 2001, and the school headmaster could not say on what basis her date of birth had been entered in the register

The Court applied Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prescribe the documentary and, where necessary, medical methods for determining age.

It relied on Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Manak Chand @ Mani v. State of Haryana for the principle that a school-register entry concerning date of birth requires evidence establishing its source and basis.

The Court also considered Section 34 of the POCSO Act and the age-determination approach discussed in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, P. Yuvaprakash v. State, and Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya.

As to the alternative IPC charge, it referred to Section 464(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on omission or error in framing a charge, and applied the principle that proof of sexual intercourse, including pregnancy, does not by itself establish rape without proof of absence of consent.

The Court held that the school-register entry did not reliably establish the victim’s age: the headmaster had not been present when she was admitted and could not identify the source of the recorded date of birth, while the underlying supporting record was not produced.

The victim’s account of her birth year and the evidence of her parents also did not resolve the age question; nor had the prosecution obtained a prescribed birth certificate or an age-determination test.

The Court therefore found minority unproved and set aside the POCSO and Section 376(3) IPC convictions.

Although the DNA report established paternity and thus sexual intercourse, it did not establish that intercourse was non-consensual.

The victim denied the alleged rape, the medical examination disclosed no injuries indicating force or resistance, and the Court found no reasonable explanation for the delay in reporting.

It consequently held that the evidence did not prove rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction, and directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in another case.