The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that a victim’s minority cannot be established solely on the basis of unproven, secondary evidence such as photocopies of birth certificates and mark sheets without compliance with foundational evidentiary requirements as per the Indian Evidence Act and Supreme Court precedent. The judgment, binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh, invalidates conviction when proof of minority is legally deficient, reinforcing strict documentary proof standards in serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/908/2022 of Lokesh Kumar Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010181682022 |
| Date of Registration | 04-06-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that photocopies of birth certificates and mark sheets, unaccompanied by original documents or failure to lay the foundational facts for admissibility of secondary evidence, cannot be relied on to prove the age of the victim. The established legal position as per Supreme Court precedents is that documentary evidence must be proved in accordance with law and secondary evidence is inadmissible without proper explanation for non-production of the original. Merely admitting a document in evidence does not equate to its proof. The trial court’s conviction, based solely on unproven copies, is unsustainable. The prosecution’s failure to prove the minority of the victim beyond reasonable doubt is fatal to the conviction under POCSO and relevant IPC provisions targeting minors. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The minor victim, allegedly aged 17 at the time of incident, left home and resided with the appellant for six months. Prosecution produced photocopies of her mark sheet and birth certificate to prove minority, with no confirmed production or proof of originals. The trial court convicted appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO. The High Court found the documentary evidence of age unproven and acquitted the appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (to extent of legal reasoning and evidentiary standards) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that mere production/admission of photocopies of birth certificates or school certificates is not proof of age unless properly proved as per Sections 61–65 of the Evidence Act.
- Accused cannot be convicted under POCSO or minor-related IPC offences in the absence of strict, legally admissible proof of minority.
- Proof of foundational facts for secondary evidence is mandatory—failure thereof renders such evidence inadmissible.
- Trial courts must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with foundational requirements before acting on secondary evidence.
- Lawyers should insist on compliance with primary/secondary evidence rules where minority/provable age is in issue, especially in POCSO/IPC prosecutions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first scrutinized the prosecution’s documentary evidence regarding the victim’s age—photocopies of birth certificate and 10th class mark sheet.
- Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, it was emphasized that secondary evidence (photocopies) cannot be admitted unless non-production of originals is explained and proper foundation is laid.
- The prosecution neither produced the original mark sheet nor the original birth certificate in court, nor explained their absence or provided foundational proof authenticating the true copies.
- The Court cited Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani to reinforce that photocopies, per se, are inadmissible in evidence.
- The trial court’s reliance on unproven documents was thus deemed “perverse and illegal.”
- On facts, the Court noted that the victim, by her own account, resided voluntarily and for an extended period with the appellant, and her testimony did not inspire confidence regarding lack of consent or minority.
- The Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of all charges, firmly anchoring its decision on the failure of proof of minority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The victim was an adult at the time of the incident and gave consent to reside with the appellant.
- No original proof of age (minority) was provided—the prosecution relied only on unproven photocopies.
- The victim voluntarily resided with the appellant for months without complaint; story of coercion was unconvincing and motivated by family pressure.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the trial court’s conviction and the use of admitted documentary evidence.
Factual Background
The father of the alleged minor victim filed an FIR reporting her as missing on 1-10-2015. The victim was traced to the appellant’s residence after over six months. The prosecution alleged the appellant, by coercion and under false pretext of marriage, took and sexually exploited the victim—citing her birth certificate and mark sheet to claim she was a minor. The appellant contended the relationship was consensual and the victim was of majority age. The trial court convicted the appellant; the High Court examined the evidentiary basis for proof of age.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 65, Indian Evidence Act: The Court analyzed requirements for admitting secondary evidence, holding that non-production of originals and lack of foundational facts negates admissibility.
- Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), IPC: Offences that require proof of victim’s minority for aggravated punishment.
- Section 6, POCSO Act: Attracted only if victim is proven to be a minor; absent such proof, conviction unsustainable.
- Section 374(2), CrPC: Appeal provision invoked.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court standards relating to secondary evidence and documentary proof were strictly followed and reaffirmed.