The Chhattisgarh High Court affirms that entries regarding date of birth in school registers, without corroborative or cogent evidence, are insufficient to conclusively establish minority for purposes of the POCSO Act. The judgment follows established Supreme Court precedents and clarifies evidentiary expectations in sexual offence trials, binding within Chhattisgarh and persuasive in other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/263/2022 of DHARAMRAJ @ PINTU PATEL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010045272022 |
| Date of Registration | 05-02-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Follows and applies Supreme Court precedents (does not overrule) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code, and Evidence Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that while a school register is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, its probative value depends on how and on whose information the date of birth was recorded. Where the entry is based on assumptions with no cogent supporting evidence (such as timely birth certificates or medical proof), it cannot conclusively establish minority for POCSO Act cases. The Court carefully evaluated the deposition of the victim and her parents, noting inconsistencies and the lack of independent witnesses, and found the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s minority or the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Established Supreme Court authorities governing evidentiary standards in such contexts were followed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 584; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp. SCC 604; Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC 133; Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010) 9 SCC 209 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Cited and applied rationale that registration entries are admissible/public documents but cannot by themselves prove age unless the foundational basis of such entry is made out; Standard of proof remains as in any criminal case. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Prosecution alleged the appellant trespassed and tried to molest a girl said to be 16 years old. FIR under IPC Sections 354, 354A, 456 and POCSO Sections 7/8. Prosecution relied primarily on school register entry and oral depositions for victim’s age. Appellant challenged age proof and reliability of interested witnesses. Court found date of birth was entered on assumption, not corroborated by contemporaneous records; noted inconsistencies in victim’s and family’s depositions and absence of independent evidence supporting prosecution version. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and cited as support in Supreme Court for evidentiary standard on age proof |
| Follows | Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006), Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988), Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand (2008), Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that an entry of date of birth in a school register, when made on the basis of assumption and not supported by foundational evidence, is insufficient proof of minority for POCSO Act purposes.
- Oral evidence from interested witnesses (family) cannot substitute for legally admissible and cogent documentary proof regarding age.
- Inconsistencies and exaggerations in witness statements (particularly victim and mother) affect the credibility required for conviction in sex offence cases.
- Lack of independent corroboration where possible (neighbouring houses) weakens the prosecution case.
- Lawyers should properly scrutinize the evidence underlying school register entries, ensuring compliance with Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act and probative standards under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The core issue was whether the victim was a minor on the date of incident, as required for POCSO Act application.
- Court closely analyzed the evidence: the date of birth in the school register (Dakhil Kharij Register) was entered based on assumptions, as admitted by victim’s father in cross-examination.
- No contemporaneous, cogent, or corroborative documentary evidence (e.g., original birth certificate or marksheet) was placed on record.
- Relying on Supreme Court authorities (Ravinder Singh Gorkhi; Birad Mal Singhvi; Babloo Pasi; Madan Mohan Singh), the Court held mere production of such public documents is insufficient unless supported by evidence of the basis of such entries.
- The Court also identified material contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, including the victim and her mother, as well as exaggerated claims not corroborated by statements under Section 161/164 CrPC.
- Noted that all main witnesses were interested or related, with no independent witness examined despite other residents living nearby.
- The prosecution’s failure on the standard of proof required for minority and the inconsistencies in molestation allegations meant benefit of doubt had to go to the accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Challenged reliance on school register for proof of minority, as entries were based on assumption, not actual birth evidence.
- Highlighted the absence/proving of original Class X marksheet.
- Pointed to delay in FIR registration and lack of plausible explanation.
- Argued lack of eyewitnesses and contradictions in statements, affecting core prosecution story.
- Asserted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, seeking acquittal.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the trial court’s judgment and findings.
Factual Background
The appellant was accused of entering the victim’s house, a girl allegedly aged around 16, at night and attempting to molest her. An FIR was lodged two days post-incident under IPC Sections 354, 354A, 456 and POCSO Sections 7/8. The prosecution’s case relied on the school register entry for the victim’s age, and the oral testimony of the victim and her family, while the accused denied the allegations. The trial resulted in conviction but was challenged on grounds of insufficient and unreliable evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act: Court discussed criteria for admissibility and proof of entries in public/official records, emphasizing probative value dependent on foundational reliability.
- Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Contemplates valid documents (birth certificate, school records, etc.) for age determination but expects these to be based on proper source information, not assumption.
- POCSO Act Sections 7/8: Applicable only if minority is established.
- Reliance on Supreme Court’s construction of documentation and proof of age in criminal trials.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment emphasized the need for actual foundational proof of school register entries for age, reinforcing procedural discipline for admitting such documents and examining witnesses in sexual offence trials.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed