The High Court clarified that, in cases involving the alleged minor status of a prosecutrix for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, mere entries in school records or oral statements from guardians—without corroborative documents or sufficient evidence—do not conclusively establish minority, following Supreme Court rulings. This judgment affirms and applies existing precedent and is binding within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/60/2022 of SUMIT JAISAWAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010006452022 |
| Date of Registration | 10-01-2022 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding Precedent (within Chhattisgarh High Court jurisdiction) |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Evidence Act, IPC (Sections 363, 366), POCSO, Juvenile Justice Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether school register and parental statements alone are sufficient proof of minority in abduction offences under IPC and POCSO. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, as per Supreme Court authority, school record entries on age have no conclusive evidentiary value unless corroborated by the testimony of the person making the entry or producing reliable documentary proof. Oral parental statements are insufficient if not supported by admissible documents. In this case, the prosecution failed to produce any legally admissible evidence to show minority of the prosecutrix at the relevant time. Consequently, the core ingredients for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not established, warranting acquittal. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The evidentiary standard for proof of age requires either a properly proved school record entry (supported by the person making the entry or primary source such as a birth certificate) or recourse to provisions under Section 94 JJ Act and medical determination if documents are lacking. Mere assumption or presumption is insufficient. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecutrix, alleged to be a minor, was taken by the appellant under the pretext of marriage. FIR was lodged under IPC. Prosecution produced school admission register and marksheet documents for age proof, but no birth certificate or corroborative evidence. Both parents admitted there was no documentary proof of age except school records, and principal was unaware of basis for entry. Prosecutrix admitted voluntarily accompanying the appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts outside Chhattisgarh |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms Supreme Court principle that school register entries alone are not conclusive proof of age unless supported by the testimony of the person making the entry, or by valid supporting documents.
- Oral parental statements regarding age, without documentary proof, are insufficient to establish minority.
- Prosecution must follow procedure under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act for age determination in absence of valid school records.
- Failure to prove age by admissible evidence can result in acquittal under Sections 363 and 366 IPC even in POCSO context.
- Lawyers should verify the chain and basis of age-related documents thoroughly when prosecuting or defending abduction or POCSO cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first posed the core question: whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident.
- The only evidence produced was the school register and a marksheet, with the principal admitting ignorance of the basis for the date of birth entry and the parents conceding a lack of any underlying documentary proof.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court authority—specifically Manak Chand @ Mani v. State of Haryana and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit—which requires the prosecution to prove the basis of school record entries, preferably via testimony of the entry-maker, and mandates that uncorroborated school records or oral statements have little or no evidentiary value.
- The Court also cited P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, emphasizing the necessity of following the hierarchy of age-proof prescribed under Section 94, JJ Act.
- The Court found that the prosecution failed to produce reliable or legally admissible evidence of minority.
- On facts, the court also found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, having voluntarily accompanied the appellant.
- As the essential element of minority was unproven, the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC could not be sustained.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident.
- The prosecutrix was a consenting party who voluntarily accompanied the appellant.
- Conviction was unjustified; requested for acquittal.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the trial court judgment.
- Submitted that the conviction was well-merited and required no interference.
Factual Background
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for abducting the prosecutrix, allegedly a minor, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The incident took place on 27.2.2019 when the prosecutrix reportedly went missing after leaving for tuition, after which an FIR was lodged by her father. She was recovered the next day. The prosecution attempted to prove her minority through school admission records and marksheet, but no other documentary or medical evidence was produced. During investigation and trial, both the principal and the prosecutrix’s parents acknowledged the lack of supporting documents for age entry. The trial court convicted the accused, which was challenged in appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC: Both offences require proof that the victim was a minor (“under 18” as per IPC) at the relevant time.
- Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Provides a stepwise evidentiary mechanism for age determination—priority to school records/birth certificate, and medical test only in their absence.
- The judgment interpreted the Supreme Court’s requirement to demonstrate chains of custody and source for documents proving age, holding such documents must be substantiated as to their basis to be legally valid.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are reported in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court affirms and applies existing Supreme Court precedent regarding proof of age in criminal abduction and POCSO-related offences.