Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Six In Alleged Rape And Trafficking Case, Citing Unproved Age And Victim’s Contradictory Testimony

The prosecution alleged that the victim left home on 26 July 2015 and was taken by accused A-1 and A-2 to a Raipur hotel, where they raped her; she was later allegedly transferred through A-3, A-5 and A-6 to A-4’s lodge at Sarangarh, where she was sexually exploited by customers.

The victim returned to Raipur on 1 August 2015. The trial court convicted the six accused of offences including kidnapping, confinement, rape, trafficking-related offences and offences under the POCSO Act. They appealed against their convictions and sentences.

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prescribes a hierarchy for age determination: the specified school or examination-board certificate first, then a birth certificate from the specified local authority, and, in the absence of those documents, medical age determination.

P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, holds that age must be determined in accordance with that statutory procedure and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving age.

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bar reliance on confessions made to police officers or while in police custody; under Section 27, only the portion distinctly relating to a fact discovered is admissible.

The presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are rebuttable and require foundational facts before they can be invoked; they do not remove the need to assess the whole evidence or establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as stated in Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1914.

A “sterling witness” must give consistent, reliable testimony capable of withstanding cross-examination and consistent with supporting evidence: Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, and Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443.

The birth certificate relied on by the prosecution was issued years after the stated birth date, its source and basis were not proved, and neither the author nor the issuing office was examined. No qualifying school or examination-board record was produced; the victim’s statement that she had passed Class XI in 2015 also raised doubt about the claimed age. The Court therefore found that minority had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

The police memoranda contained confessional assertions and could not prove guilt; the hotel and lodge site plans established only the locations, while the mobile-phone seizures, without call records, did not establish contact or criminal coordination.

The victim gave materially contradictory evidence, including denying in cross-examination that anyone visited her hotel room and stating that police had instructed her what to say. The medical and forensic evidence did not establish recent intercourse. Taken cumulatively, the evidence did not reliably prove the offences or satisfy the standard for applying the POCSO presumptions.

It set aside the convictions and sentences of all six appellants, acquitted them on the basis of benefit of doubt and allowed all five appeals. It directed that appellants in custody be released if not required in another case and that, for appellants on bail, their bail bonds be cancelled and sureties discharged.