Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man Of Rape, POCSO Charges, Citing Unproved Age And Contradictory Sexual-Relations Testimony

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that he had taken the victim away on the pretext of marriage and sexually exploited her.

The victim’s stated date of birth was 31 March 2008, but the prosecution relied on a private school’s Dakhil Kharij Register; no birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was produced, and no ossification test was conducted.

On appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the appellant challenged both proof of the victim’s minority and the reliability of the allegation of sexual intercourse.

The prosecution must prove each element of the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) governs determination of age.

The Court held, relying on Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2025 SC 3570, that in the absence of a matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth in the records of a private school could not, on the evidence in this case, establish age where its source had not been proved.

A conviction may rest on the sole testimony of the victim, but only where that testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence.

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) BNSS, and the charges concerned Section 64(1) BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The victim and her father gave the same date of birth, but neither established who supplied it for the school record or the basis on which it was entered; the school’s in-charge headmaster also could not identify that basis and had not made the entry.

The Court therefore found the private-school register insufficient to prove minority beyond reasonable doubt.

On the allegation of sexual intercourse, the victim’s court testimony materially conflicted with her Section 183 BNSS statement, in which she said no physical relations had occurred and that she implicated the appellant at her father’s instance; she also acknowledged that her account of intercourse at the specified locations was given for the first time in court.

The medical examination revealed no signs of rape and the FSL report was negative.

In light of these inconsistencies, the evidentiary support from the father was hearsay, and the Court found the victim’s testimony insufficiently reliable to establish the allegation.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 64(1) BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

As the appellant was reported to be in jail, the Court directed his release forthwith unless required in another case, subject to furnishing the bond and undertaking specified in the judgment.