Minority of prosecutrix must be proved with cogent and reliable evidence; non-examination of author of birth entry, mismatch of names, and absence of ossification test vitiate conviction. Judgment affirms binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents on the evidentiary threshold for age determination, and clarifies procedure in sexual offence trials in the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1051/2007 of BALRAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010004802007 |
| Date of Registration | 17-11-2007 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; strong persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court judgments
|
| Type of Law | Substantive and Procedural Criminal Law; Evidence Act; IPC (Sections 363, 366, 376), BNS, JJ Act |
| Questions of Law | What is the standard of proof required to establish the age of prosecutrix for conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The prosecution must conclusively establish the minority of the prosecutrix at the relevant time. Non-examination of the author of a birth register entry, discrepancies in the name, and lack of supporting medical evidence (such as ossification test) are fatal to proof of minority. Judgment reiterates that merely filing school or panchayat documents without examining their author and without reliable medical corroboration does not meet the threshold of proof. Consent is material if minority is not established beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Prosecution alleged the appellant abducted, married, and raped the prosecutrix (alleged minor). FIR under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. Prosecution relied on Kotwari register and marksheet for age proof; prosecutrix, her mother, and father gave inconsistent statements on age; no ossification test conducted. Trial court convicted appellant; High Court found evidentiary lapses and acquitted. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | All other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that the prosecution must examine the author of an entry relied upon for proving age in criminal sexual offence cases.
- Mismatch of names in documentary evidence (Kotwari Panji) and lack of medical tests like ossification are fatal.
- Even if a document is admissible under Section 35 Evidence Act, its evidentiary value can be low if the basis for the age entry is unverified.
- If minority is not conclusively proved, consent of the prosecutrix is relevant for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
- Defence can successfully challenge convictions if foundational facts for age determination are flawed.
- Lawyers must insist upon strict compliance with evidentiary rules in age determination for sexual offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court closely examined the statements and documents regarding the prosecutrix’s age.
- The prosecutrix, her parents, and Kotwar gave inconsistent or uncorroborated statements about her age.
- The Kotwari Panji/Age Register entry was not proved as the author was not examined, and the name ‘Charumati’ did not match the prosecutrix’s name.
- Medical evidence did not support minority; no ossification test was conducted as advised by the doctor.
- The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in P. Yuvaprakash, which mandated strict compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act and required documentary or medical proof of age.
- Alamelu v. State was cited to emphasize that documents, even if admissible, must have reliable foundational evidence to be credible for age determination.
- In the absence of cogent proof of minority, the court found the prosecutrix was a consenting party; thus, conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC could not be sustained.
- The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Challenged the conviction as illegal and unsupported by evidence.
- Argued the prosecutrix and her parents did not support the prosecution case regarding age.
- Pointed out non-examination of the author of the birth register entry and mismatch of names in evidence.
- Highlighted absence of ossification test and inconclusive medical evidence.
- Asserted no offence made out, as minority/proof of age was not established.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
- Argued that documentary and oral evidence sufficiently proved the case.
- Opposed appeal, asserting it should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The appellant was accused of abducting, marrying, and raping the prosecutrix, allegedly a minor, after eloping and conducting a mass wedding. The prosecutrix, her parents, and other key witnesses gave inconsistent statements regarding her age at trial. Prosecution relied on birth registration records and a school marksheet, but could not definitively prove her minority. The accused was convicted by the trial court but appealed against the conviction, citing evidentiary flaws.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility of birth and school documents, with requirement of foundational proof for evidentiary value.
- Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC: Require proof of minority for certain elements; consent immaterial only if age below statutory limit.
- Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act: Specifies primary modes for age determination (school certificate, birth certificate, ossification test); court emphasized strict compliance.
- Section 313 CrPC: Accused’s statements denying allegations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion recorded in the available judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Application of Section 481 BNSS, 2023 for furnishing bonds and sureties upon acquittal post-conviction.
- Directions for expeditious release and compliance by trial court and jail authorities.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44941 (Neutral Citation)
- Vinod Nat v. State of CG, CRA No.1035/2019 (Chhattisgarh High Court, 18.03.2025)
- Alamelu v. State, (2011) 2 SCC 385
- P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (Supreme Court, 2023)
- Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P.