The High Court of Chhattisgarh clarifies that mere production of school records and unsupported birth entries cannot conclusively prove a prosecutrix’s minority in criminal trials for sexual offences; the judgment follows and applies established Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing rigorous evidentiary requirements and serving as binding authority within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1333/2017 of Ravi Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010043862017 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2017 |
| Decision Date | 04-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Not specified as dissent; both judges are signatories. |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh, persuasive outside the state. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court decisions in Babloo Pasi, Sunil, Alamelu, and Manak Chand. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Evidentiary Law (Evidence Act); Sexual Offences; POCSO Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether school records and uncorroborated entries suffice to prove the prosecutrix’s age as below 18 in the absence of primary evidence and reliable testimony? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, in line with Supreme Court authority, school admission registers and marksheets, unless properly authenticated and supported by testimony of those making the entries or supplying birth details, do not conclusively establish the age of the prosecutrix. An entry in a public or official record under Section 35 of the Evidence Act has limited probative value unless corroborated by the person who made the entry or provided the information. Discrepancy in age evidence and lack of ossification or primary school records entails benefit of doubt for the accused. Consent is further established in the statement of the prosecutrix. Jurisprudence demands strict standards for proof of minority in serious criminal cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 35 of the Evidence Act; the need for corroboration of documentary evidence with proper oral testimony; Supreme Court jurisprudence on evidentiary standards for age proof in criminal law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The accused were convicted under sections including 363, 366, and 376(d) IPC and POCSO Act by the trial court. The prosecution asserted the victim was a minor; however, discrepant birth dates appeared in her statement, school records, and marksheet, with no ossification test done and the father unable to testify to her birth date. The court concluded the victim’s age as minority was not proved. The victim admitted to being in a love affair, voluntarily accompanying the co-accused, and raised no immediate alarm. The court acquitted the accused on these grounds. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh. |
| Persuasive For | Other State High Courts, Supreme Court. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that school admission registers, marksheets, or transfer certificates alone do not conclusively prove age unless the person making the entries or providing information is examined in court.
- Confirms that discrepancies in documentary age evidence or lack of primary evidence (e.g., ossification test, parent’s clear testimony) should result in benefit of doubt to accused in cases involving age-based offences.
- Emphasizes the necessity for prosecution to produce substantive, corroborated primary evidence to establish minority in sexual offence trials.
- Clarifies that admissions of consent by the complainant, when properly established on the record, remain highly relevant where minority is not proved.
- Provides clear grounds for defence counsel to challenge convictions based on insufficient or uncorroborated age proof.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court conducted a detailed analysis of the documentary evidence, noting material discrepancies in the dates of birth recorded by the prosecutrix herself, in the school register (Dakhil Kharij), and in her marksheet. It highlighted the absence of any ossification test and the inability of the victim’s father to state her correct date of birth.
The judgment examined the evidentiary value of school records, citing Supreme Court precedents: Babloo Pasi (2008), Sunil (2010), Alamelu (2011), Manak Chand (2023), and Birad Mal Singhvi (1988), all holding that such records require corroboration by the testimony of the person making the entry or providing the information, else they have little probative value. The principal’s testimony further established that entries were not based on primary records but on later documents of unclear authenticity.
In line with precedent, the court found these weaknesses fatal to the prosecution’s case on age and granted the accused the benefit of doubt. It also assessed consent, relying on the prosecutrix’s own testimony about her voluntary conduct and relationship with the main accused. Concluding both issues in the appellants’ favour, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The victim willingly accompanied the accused and was a consenting party in a love relationship.
- The prosecution failed to prove the victim was below 18 at the time of the incident; the evidence regarding date of birth was doubtful, inconsistent, and unsupported.
- There was no authentication of the date of birth entries; no primary register produced; no ossification test conducted; the victim’s father could not corroborate her age.
- Accused Ravi Yadav played no relevant role; victim did not name or accuse him in her statements.
Respondent (State):
- The trial court’s conviction was based on sufficient and reliable evidence; no interference was warranted.
- The findings on age and offences were proper and should be upheld.
Factual Background
The accused were convicted by the trial court under Sections 363, 366, and 376(d) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for kidnapping and raping a minor girl, with all sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution relied on school records to prove the victim’s age, but presented inconsistent dates of birth, unsupported by testimony from the person making those entries or providing the information, and did not conduct an ossification test. The victim’s father could not confirm her age. The victim, in her testimony, acknowledged a consensual romantic relationship with one co-accused and did not accuse the other of any wrongdoing. The conviction was appealed on grounds, inter alia, of failure to prove the victim’s minority and the consensual nature of the acts.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35 of the Evidence Act was central: the court explained that entries in public records (school registers, marksheets) require proper authentication and corroboration by the person making the entry or the informant to have evidentiary value.
- The court cited Supreme Court interpretations, emphasizing that the probative value of school records without foundational testimony is weak.
- No expansive or innovative interpretation; the court strictly applied established evidentiary requirements for age determination in criminal law.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; both judges on the Division Bench concurred in granting acquittal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines are set forth in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows, applies, and reaffirms existing law as declared by the Supreme Court on evidentiary standards for age proof.