When lack of material evidence on age requires conversion of Section 376(3) IPC to Section 376(1) — High Court of Chhattisgarh upholds Alamelu precedent, partly allowing appeal and serving as binding authority for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1401/2019 of SIRTI DARRO @ SURJEET SINGH DARRO, Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010324172019 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey; Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; affirms Supreme Court precedent on age proof |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Alamelu v State (2011) 2 SCC 385; overrules trial court’s finding of victim’s minority |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (IPC, POCSO Act, Evidence Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The prosecution failed to produce “clinching and legally admissible evidence” of the victim’s minority, as required under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and Supreme Court authority in Alamelu. School records lacked foundation, parents could not recall birth date, and radiological opinion admitted a two‐year margin of error. However, forcible intercourse was otherwise proved by hostile testimony, medical findings, and test‐identification parade. Consequently, conviction under Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 4 POCSO was unsustainable, but Section 376(1) IPC was made out. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Alamelu & another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 2 SCC 385 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant took her to a nearby forest, threatened her, stuffed leaves in her mouth and committed rape. FIR was lodged under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, investigation included spot and nazri maps, medical exam and 164 CrPC statement. Trial court convicted under Sections 363, 366, 506(Part II), 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act; appeal challenged age proof and rape findings. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44507-DB (DB); CRA No. 1401 of 2019 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | Trial court’s finding that the prosecutrix was a minor |
| Follows | Alamelu & another v. State (2011) 2 SCC 385 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Without a foundational basis for a school‐recorded birth date and in absence of parental recollection, age entries in admission registers lack evidentiary weight under Section 35.
- Radiological age estimation with a two‐year margin cannot conclusively establish minority.
- Even when POCSO/Section 376(3) IPC cannot be sustained for lack of age proof, Section 376(1) IPC conviction may be maintained if forcible intercourse is otherwise proved.
- Test‐identification parade plus medical findings suffice to establish non-consensual intercourse.
- Subordinate courts must apply stringent standards from Alamelu before recording minority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Age Evidence Scrutiny
- Parents (P.W. 2 & P.W. 16) could not recall date of birth.
- School principal (P.W. 5) admitted no knowledge of basis for date in admission register.
- Radiologist (P.W. 18) allowed two-year variation.
- Application of Alamelu
- Under Section 35, public documents need supporting material to establish age; absence of such material renders age proof infirm.
- Conclusion on Minority
- Prosecution failed to prove victim was under 18; trial court’s finding set aside.
- Proof of Forcible Intercourse
- Hostile testimony of victim (P.W. 1) ultimately admitted rape.
- Medical officer (P.W. 8) found bleeding/redness.
- Test-identification parade (Ex.P/3) positively identified accused.
- Reclassification of Offence
- Section 376(3) IPC read with Section 4 POCSO Act conviction unsustainable; converted to Section 376(1) IPC.
- Other convictions under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC upheld.
- Sentencing and Set-off
- RI for 10 years under Section 376(1) IPC; original fines maintained.
- Seven-year pre-trial detention set off under Section 468, BNSS 2023.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The prosecutrix’s own testimony denied rape (only leaf stuffing).
- Father (P.W. 2) denied lodging FIR for rape; contradicted headline charge.
- Dr. Sarita Kumeti (P.W. 8) found no signs of force; FSL report showed no sperm.
- No credible evidence of victim’s minority.
Respondent (State):
- Trial court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence.
- Conviction under charged offences was justified; no interference warranted.
Factual Background
The prosecutrix, left alone in a field granary, was allegedly taken by the appellant to a nearby forest, threatened, had leaves stuffed in her mouth and subjected to forcible intercourse. The mother informed the father, who reported the incident to the village sarpanch and later lodged an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. Investigation included spot mapping, medical examination, radiological age estimation, recording of a Section 164 statement, seizures and test-identification parade, culminating in trial court conviction and this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- IPC Sections 363, 366, 506 (Part II), 376(3), 376(1): Differentiation based on victim’s age and nature of sexual offence.
- Section 4, POCSO Act 2012: Definition of penetrative sexual assault on a child.
- Section 35, Evidence Act 1872: Admissibility of public documents and requirement for foundational material.
- Section 42, POCSO Act 2012: Minimum sentence applicability.
- Section 468, BNSS 2023: Set-off of pre-trial detention.
Procedural Innovations
- Application of Section 468, BNSS 2023 for set-off of detention period.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44507-DB (Bilaspur Bench)
- CRA No. 1401 of 2019
- Alamelu & another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 2 SCC 385