Court emphasises that documentary evidence from private schools, especially without foundation or corroboration, is insufficient to establish the minority of the victim under the POCSO Act if family testimony is inconsistent and legal proof is missing. Reaffirms and applies Supreme Court precedent, sets binding precedent for trial and appellate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/783/2022 of BHAYKARAN SONWANI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010153802022 |
| Date of Registration | 06-05-2022 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the State of Chhattisgarh; persuasive authority for other jurisdictions. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court judgments in Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand (2008) and Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010). |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether the age of the victim can be established solely on the basis of private school records in the absence of corroborative evidence and amidst contradictions in oral testimony. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Conviction under the POCSO Act requires strict proof of the victim’s minority on the date of the incident. School records from a private institution, which are not shown to be based on original, reliable information, are insufficient on their own. The prosecution must produce or prove either the birth certificate, records from the first school attended, or otherwise establish the foundation of such documents through appropriate testimony. Contradictions in family members’ statements regarding the age, and lack of direct testimony or reliable documentation, defeat the prosecution case on minority. The norm outlined by the Supreme Court in Babloo Pasi and Madan Mohan Singh must be scrupulously followed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2008) 13 SCC 133; Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another, (2010) 9 SCC 209; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, (1997) 4 SCC 24 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The probative value of documentary evidence for age under Section 35 of the Evidence Act depends on proper proof of how and on whose information the entry was made. Only admissible and trustworthy records can establish minority. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecution alleged molestation of a minor girl. FIR was lodged by the victim; the prosecution relied on a private school Dakhil Kharij register and Class V marksheet to prove age. Family members gave contradictory statements about age, and no direct testimony or foundational document from the first school or birth certificate was provided. Medical evidence showed no injuries, and underlying property dispute between families was noted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; Fast Track Special Courts dealing with POCSO matters. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, appellate forums, and lawyers across India handling similar issues of age determination. |
| Follows | Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand (2008), Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010), Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1997) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that private school records, without foundational proof or corroboration, are insufficient for establishing minority under the POCSO Act.
- Contradictory oral testimony from family members further weakens the prosecution case on age.
- Documentary proof must be supported by testimony about the source and reliability of the entry (as per Supreme Court precedents).
- Lawyers must ensure production and proper proof of foundational documents (birth certificate, first school record, etc.) for age.
- Trial courts must scrutinise how the date of birth entered in school record was ascertained; mere production of secondary school certificates or private register is not enough.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined prosecution evidence and noted the absence of direct testimony as to the victim’s date of birth by either the victim or her relatives.
- Contradictions surfaced in the oral evidence: the father and grandfather gave inconsistent statements about the victim’s age on the same day.
- The primary documentary evidence—the Dakhil Kharij register and Class V marksheet—were from a private school admitted at a later stage, with no record from the earlier school (or Anganbadi) produced.
- Citing Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand (2008), the court outlined the requirements for admissibility of entries under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, pointing to the necessity of showing the basis of the entry.
- Drawing on Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010), the court emphasised the need for courts to test the probative value of such entries and require proof of the source of entry.
- The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the victim’s minority to the required standard; thus, conviction under the POCSO Act could not be sustained.
- The presence of property dispute and lack of medical injury further cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution case regarding molestation.
- Acquittal was ordered, setting aside the conviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No lawful or properly proven documentary evidence regarding minority; reliance solely on private school records is unjustified.
- Contradictory evidence from victim’s relatives about her age.
- Prosecution failed to provide or prove foundational records (e.g., birth certificate or first school record).
- Existing family property dispute provides motive for false implication.
- No medical evidence of injury despite serious allegations.
- Conviction was perverse and unsustainable; sought acquittal.
Respondent
- Judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence by the Special Court.
- Sought dismissal of the appeal.
Factual Background
On 30 July 2019, a minor girl alleged that she was molested by the appellant near an agricultural field. An FIR was lodged against the appellant under Sections 354(A)(1)(i) and 354(D) of IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution sought to establish the victim’s minority via a Dakhil Kharij register and Class V marksheet from a private school, but the victim’s family members gave contradictory statements about her age, and no primary or governmental records were produced. There was also underlying property litigation between the families.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding admissibility and probative value of entries in official records.
- Analyzed sections of the POCSO Act that make a victim’s minority an essential element of the offence.
- Considered Section 374(2) CrPC (appeal against conviction).
- Relied on existing Supreme Court interpretation of what constitutes satisfactory proof for the age of the victim.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision closely follows and applies established Supreme Court precedents on proof of age through documentary evidence in criminal trials.