High Court of Chhattisgarh sets aside conviction, holding that contradictory age evidence and admission of consensual elopement negate elements of abduction, rape and statutory offences—affirming Supreme Court precedents and binding on trial courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/898/2019 of Sharad Kumar Chaube Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010189712019 |
| Date of Registration | 01-06-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (concurring) |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench (Rajani Dubey & Amitendra Kishore Prasad) |
| Precedent Value | Follows existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules trial court judgment of conviction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Sexual Offences & SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether contradictory age records and admission of voluntary elopement can defeat conviction under Sections 366, 376 IPC, SC/ST Act §3(2)(v) and POCSO Act §§5, 6? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that proof of minority under the POCSO Act and IPC sexual-offence provisions requires reliable documentary foundation. Inconsistent dates of birth in FIR, school register and oral statements render the prosecutrix’s age unproved. Admissions by the prosecutrix that she eloped voluntarily and experienced no force undermine essential elements of abduction (Section 366 IPC) and rape (Section 376 IPC). Since POCSO Act offences and SC/ST Act offences depend on proof of minor age or underlying sexual assault, those convictions cannot stand. The trial court’s findings on age and non-consensual intercourse were set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Alamelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385; P. Yuvaprakash v. State, AIR 2023 SC 3525 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Application of Section 35, Indian Evidence Act to test public documents; Alamelu on limited probative value of school registers; Yuvaprakash on requirement to show basis for recorded age; admissions negating force and insult. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix voluntarily eloped with the appellant and stayed with him for months; three different birth dates emerged from her, her mother’s and the school’s records; no evidence of force or caste-based insult was found. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44508-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts on issues of age proof and consent in sexual-offence cases |
| Overrules | Conviction in Special Case (Atrocities) No. 03/2018 by the Special Judge, Bemetara |
| Follows | Alamelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385; P. Yuvaprakash v. State, AIR 2023 SC 3525 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High evidentiary standard for proving minor’s age under POCSO Act reaffirmed: inconsistent records negate proof.
- Contradictory birth dates in FIR, statements and school register undermine presumption of minority.
- Prosecutrix’s admissions of voluntary elopement and absence of force nullify elements of abduction (Section 366 IPC) and rape (Section 376 IPC).
- Application of Section 35, Indian Evidence Act, to public documents emphasises need for foundational material showing how age was recorded.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The school admission register (seized as Ex-P/16) lacked foundational basis for date-of-birth entry; under Section 35 its probative value is limited without supporting material.
- Reliance on Alamelu and Yuvaprakash: public documents must be tested for underlying record-making; inconsistent entries cannot establish age.
- The prosecutrix admitted on oath that she eloped willingly, was in love and suffered no force or insult—fatal to Section 366 (abduction) and Section 376 (rape) IPC charges.
- POCSO Act Sections 5 and 6 require proof that the victim was a child; failure to prove minority mandates acquittal under those provisions.
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act §3(2)(v) conviction depends on commission of the underlying sexual offence; with those offences unproved, related atrocity charges collapse.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Witness statements and FIR contain material contradictions about the prosecutrix’s date of birth.
- Expert evidence (PW-22) showed no recent intercourse or injury to the prosecutrix.
- The prosecutrix voluntarily eloped and experienced no coercion; she was a consenting party.
- Reliance on Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, AIR 2023 SC 3525 to challenge proof of age.
Respondent (State)
- The trial court conducted a detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant.
- The appeal should be dismissed and the convictions upheld.
Factual Background
On 03.12.2017 the prosecutrix’s mother filed a missing-person report; the police traced the prosecutrix in the company of the appellant. At trial, the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act acquitted the appellant of Section 363 IPC but convicted him under Sections 366, 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 5(Tha) & 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant challenged his conviction on grounds of inconsistent age proof and admitted voluntary elopement.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35, Indian Evidence Act: admissibility and limited probative value of public documents without evidence of how entries were made.
- Section 366 IPC: abduction to compel illicit intercourse or marriage—requires absence of consent.
- Section 376 IPC: rape—requires proof of sexual intercourse without consent.
- Section 3(2)(v), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: covers sexual offences against SC/ST persons.
- Section 5(Tha) & Section 6, POCSO Act: penalise sexual assault on a child; proof of minority is essential.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed
Citations
2025:CGHC:44508-DB