The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that school admission registers and unsupported transfer certificates—absent reliable, primary documents or proper foundational evidence—cannot conclusively establish minority for POCSO offences; reaffirms binding Supreme Court precedent on age determination and sets aside conviction where age proof is lacking. The ruling reinforces the mandatory evidentiary hierarchy and standard for proof of age, serving as binding authority for trial and subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/483/2016 of Monu @ Jitendra Rajak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010031402016 |
| Date of Registration | 08-04-2016 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Follows and applies Supreme Court precedent; sets aside the trial court’s conviction |
| Type of Law | Criminal, POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code |
| Questions of Law | What is the evidentiary standard for determining the age of a victim in POCSO/rape prosecutions? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the prosecution must produce cogent, reliable evidence to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the offence. Merely adducing a school register or unsupported transfer certificate is insufficient, unless foundational evidence is produced (such as testimony of the person who made or supplied the entry, or primary documents like a birth certificate). Absence of such evidence, or internal contradictions therein, entitles the accused to acquittal of POCSO and similar charges. The court also reaffirmed that if the evidence is ambiguous or allows two possible views, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, especially in borderline cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Indian Evidence Act Section 35; Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; Supreme Court precedent |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 450, 376(1) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. The conviction was premised on the school register and transfer certificate regarding the victim’s age, and the testimony of the prosecutrix, her family, and a medical officer. The accused challenged the evidentiary sufficiency on the aspect of age, contradictions in testimony, and lack of medical corroboration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh (and persuasive for other Indian courts) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates strict evidentiary hierarchy for age determination: Where no proper foundational or corroborative document is produced (such as an authentic and reliable birth certificate), mere entries in school registers or unsupported transfer certificates are not conclusive or sufficient to prove minority for POCSO or rape charges.
- Burden of proof: The onus is on the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt if primary age proof or direct evidence is lacking or contradictory.
- Trial strategy: Defence lawyers should rigorously challenge age evidence that does not follow the Supreme Court’s hierarchy. Prosecution must ensure primary documents and foundational evidence to sustain POCSO convictions.
- Rejection of medical evidence as sole criterion: Medical or ossification tests are only subsidiary where documentary proof is lacking; even then, the margin for error must be factored.
- No presumption in favour of prosecution: In ambiguous or borderline cases, the courts must lean in favour of the accused regarding age.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court framed the central legal question as whether the prosecution proved the victim’s age to be below 18 beyond reasonable doubt, as is essential for conviction under the POCSO Act.
- The court evaluated documentary evidence (Dakhil Kharij register, school mark sheet, transfer certificate) and corresponding oral evidence, finding contradictions and lack of proper foundational testimony.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alamelu v. State, holding that mere production of a school certificate is not enough; the document’s provenance and trustworthiness must be established through the person making the entry or providing the date.
- The court reiterated the evidentiary standard as summarized in Rishipal Singh Solanki, emphasizing that only documents specified under Section 94(2) of JJ Act and Rule 12(3)(a) JJ Rules can raise a presumption, and even that presumption can be rebutted.
- It cited P. Yuvaprakash, which clarified the preference and hierarchy for admissibility: school or board-certified birth certificate, failing which, municipal certificate, and only then medical tests.
- The court considered that even if the victim were to be considered above 16, as discussed in Jaya Mala and Tilku @ Tilak Singh, the law presumes capacity to consent, and further analysis of rape and house-trespass charges was conducted, finding that the prosecution did not discharge its burden.
- The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony and lack of medical or FSL evidence, leading to the grant of benefit of doubt to the accused on all charges.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Contended false implication and lack of conclusive evidence.
- Asserted that prosecution failed to prove minority of the victim.
- Pointed to inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements.
- Invoked lack of medical and direct corroboration of the prosecution story.
Respondent (State):
- Argued that there was clear evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix.
- Maintained that conviction was merited and no interference was warranted.
Factual Background
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 450, 376(1) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, based on allegations of house trespass and rape of a minor. The victim’s age was attested via school records and a transfer certificate. During investigation and trial, witness statements and medical examination reports were produced. The appellant challenged the conviction, questioning both the credibility of the age evidence and the consistency of the prosecution story.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35, Indian Evidence Act: The court assessed whether entries in public documents (school registers) were admissible and sufficient to prove age.
- Section 94(2), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Laid out a hierarchy of documents for age determination (school/board certificate > municipal/panchayat certificate > medical/ossification report).
- The court noted the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary standard set by these provisions, as the foundational chain for school register and transfer certificate entries was not established.
- Reliance on radiological or medical opinion was discounted in the absence of documentary compliance and noting the margin for error established in Jaya Mala.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court criteria for age determination reaffirmed and rigorously applied.
Citations
- Alamelu and Anr v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385
- Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of UP & Ors, (2022) 8 SCC 602
- P. Yuvaprakash v. State, (2023) SCC Online SC 846
- Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1297
- Tilku @ Tilak Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand, (2025) INSC 226
- S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 36
- Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745