Chhattisgarh High Court reiterates that conviction under Sections 376(1) and 450 IPC cannot be sustained when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; upholds and applies precedent clarifying evidentiary requirements—remains binding authority within state jurisdiction and persuasive more broadly.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1055/2007 of MUNNA @ PARMESHWAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010001562007 |
| Date of Registration | 19-11-2007 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on benefit of doubt in absence of clinching evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Substantive and Procedural |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction for rape and house trespass can be sustained in the absence of reliable, corroborative, and legally admissible evidence regarding age, medical evidence, and victim testimony; correct application of “benefit of doubt” standard. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a conviction under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC cannot be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was emphasized that corroborative evidence—especially regarding the prosecutrix’s age, medical examination findings, and consistent testimony—is essential. In the present case, discrepancies in victim testimony, lack of injuries, absence of reliable age determination, and failure to produce gynecological evidence led to acquittal. The judgment clarifies that in such circumstances, accused must receive the benefit of doubt. Prior precedents (Guddu Poyam v. State of Chhattisgarh; Ravi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh) were followed to reinforce these evidentiary standards. The High Court set aside the conviction and directed the appellant’s release. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Guddu Poyam v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 101/2023, 25.08.2023); Ravi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No.212/2020, 12.11.2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Importance of reliable medical evidence and age determination in sexual offence cases; necessity for prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; application of standard from Modi’s medical jurisprudence regarding ossification test margin; benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The victim alleged that the appellant entered her house at night and committed forcible sexual intercourse, threatening to kill her if she cried out. Family members purportedly saw the appellant fleeing. Medical evidence found no injuries, and gynecological follow-up was not produced. The victim’s age (said to be 14) was not conclusively established, as school records were based on transfer certificates and the ossification test allowed for a margin of error. Family member testimonies were inconsistent or hostile. The trial court had convicted, but the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows | Guddu Poyam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023); Ravi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the prosecution’s failure to present clinching and legally admissible evidence on age, corroborative medical evidence, and consistent testimony entitles the accused to acquittal.
- Emphasizes that ossification test margin of error (three years either side) must be considered and cannot conclusively establish age below 16 under criminal law.
- Holds that absence of injuries and lack of gynecological evidence undermine the prosecution’s case in sexual offence trials.
- Applies and clarifies the standards for benefit of doubt in rape and house trespass cases—can be cited to challenge convictions based on doubtful, inconsistent, or incomplete evidence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinized the prosecution’s evidence and found significant gaps and inconsistencies:
- The victim’s age was not established conclusively—school register relied on transfer certificate, and ossification test carries a three-year margin per established medical jurisprudence.
- Medical evidence (from Dr. Sneh Lata Tirkey) did not reveal injuries or trauma, and although gynecological examination was recommended, no such report was produced; this left medical corroboration lacking.
- Testimony from key witnesses (prosecutrix’s mother, uncle, and others) was either hostile or did not support the prosecution’s case.
- The Court placed reliance on its own recent precedents: Guddu Poyam v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ravi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, which had articulated similar standards on evidentiary requirements and benefit of doubt.
- The Court reiterated the legal necessity for prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sexual offence cases.
- Concluded that without corroborative, reliable, and admissible evidence, conviction cannot stand; the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Conviction was based on unreliable and insufficient evidence.
- No medical evidence supporting forcible intercourse.
- The prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated.
- No conclusive proof of victim’s age below statutory threshold.
- Family members were hostile or unreliable witnesses.
- Absence of gynecological report undermines prosecution case.
- Sought benefit of doubt due to failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent (State)
- Supported the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and conviction.
- Argued that oral and documentary evidence sufficed to prove guilt.
Factual Background
The case arose from an incident on 28.03.2005, when the prosecutrix alleged that the appellant entered her house late at night and committed rape under threat. FIR was lodged by her father and uncle at P.S. Bhatgaon, with allegations under Sections 376(1), 450 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. At trial, the prosecution relied on testimony and medical reports; major witnesses turned hostile or failed to support essential facts, and medical/age evidence remained inconclusive.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpretation of Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC focused on need for strict proof of each element—especially age if minor involved.
- Application of medical jurisprudence regarding ossification test: it carries a standard three-year margin; cannot be sole basis for establishing age.
- The requirement of corroboration by medical evidence in sexual offence cases was emphasized.
- References made to Section 374(2) CrPC (scope of criminal appeals), and Section 481 of BNSS 2023 regarding release on personal bond pending possible Supreme Court review.
- The charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was not proved and resulted in acquittal at trial stage.
Procedural Innovations
- Court invoked Section 481 of BNSS 2023 for directing release of the appellant on personal bond with stipulations regarding appearance if Supreme Court process is initiated.
- No changes to evidence requirements or other procedural guidelines issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed