1 CRA No. 984 of 2025 2025:CGHC:48271-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 984 of 2025 Arun Chauhan S/o Shobhan Ram Aged About 19 Years as per FIR (At Present 25 Years) R/o Village Natkela (Wrongly Mention Matkela) Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Bagicha (Wrongly Mention Kansabel In Judgment), District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General For Objector : Mr. Hrishabh Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 19/09/2025 1. In the case at hand, 03 accused persons were tried and out of them, two accused persons namely; Shobhan Ram and Birsho Bai were acquitted by the trial Court. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.22 17:37:56 +0530 2 CRA No. 984 of 2025 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the B.N.S.S. is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 05/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jashpur, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(3) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. U/s 6 of the POCSO Act Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 1st of August 2020, PW- 1 father of the victim lodged a written complaint at the Bagicha Police Station to the effect that his daughter (PW-2) had been lured and abducted by the accused/appellant Arun Chauhan on 31st of July, 2020. Further it has been alleged that the accused had abducted the victim earlier many times. Based on the complaint lodged by him, Police Station Bagicha registered a case under Section 363 of the IPC and initiated investigation. During investigation, the victim was recovered from the accused and a recovery panchnama was prepared. The accused was taken into custody after it was found that he had committed the crime. Spot 3 CRA No. 984 of 2025 Map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. With regard to date of birth of the Victim, Dakhil Kharij register (Ex.P/11C) was seized. Statement of the Victim and other witnesses were recorded. Medical examination of the victim was conducted. After completing the investigation proceedings, final report was prepared. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.04.2025 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the 4 CRA No. 984 of 2025 prosecution witnesses. He would submit that the medical report is not supported the version of the prosecution. In the evidence of the witnesses, it can be seen that there are material contradiction and omissions. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the prosecutrix/Victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident and without there being any evidence with regard to the age of the Victim, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. There is clear evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the objector (father of victim) supported the accused. He submits that now the victim is residing happily and cozily with the family members of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the victim and her family members have no objection, if the accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 5 CRA No. 984 of 2025 10. The first question arises before this Court whether the victim was minor on the date of incident or not?. 11. The father of victim (PW-1), in his deposition, stated that in the year 2019, the victim was studying in Class 10th. He further stated that he had not gone school for her admission, and voluntarily admitted that his wife (PW-3) had taken the victim to the school for her admission. He estimated the age of the victim at the time of incident to be around 15–16 years, but also admitted during cross-examination that she was turning 21, thereby creating an inherent contradiction in his own statement regarding her age. In contrast, the victim herself stated during her examination that her date of birth is 21/01/1999. 12. Further, the prosecution examined the Headmaster of School where the victim studied. He produced the Dakhil Kharij register (Ex. P-11), stating that as per school records, the victim was admitted to Class 1st on 12.07.2010 and her date of birth was recorded as 21.06.2004. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had not recorded the date of birth of the victim, as it was recorded earlier to his posting. He further admitted that the name of the person who got the victim admitted in school and on what basis the date of birth of victim was recorded, is not mentioned in the said register Ex. P-11. 13. Perusal of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses reveal a 6 CRA No. 984 of 2025 material contradiction with regard to the actual age date of birth of the victim. While the school record mentions her date of birth as 21.06.2004, the victim herself claimed it to be 21.01.1999. This inconsistency raises serious doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the prosecution's claim that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. Further perusal of the statements would show that though there is entry regarding date of birth of the victim in the Dakhil Kharij register, but on what basis, the entry was made, is not mentioned in the register. Even the author of the entry made in the register is also not examined. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 40,42,43,44 and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2) SCC 385, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "40.Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. 7 CRA No. 984 of 2025 42. Considering the manner in which the facts recorded in a document may be proved, this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit1, observed as follows:- "The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined....Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted." 43. The same proposition of law is reiterated by this Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal2, where this Court observed as follows:- "The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of 8 CRA No. 984 of 2025 its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue"." 44. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the transfer certificate can not be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the girl. 48. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P.4 held as follows:- "The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the 9 CRA No. 984 of 2025 accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted." 15. In case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602, while considering various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 33 as under: "33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows: 33.2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be. XXXX XXXX XXXX 33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub- section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised. 33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side. 33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the 10 CRA No. 984 of 2025 age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinized and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case. 33.7 This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. 33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. 11 CRA No. 984 of 2025 33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. 33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions. 33.11. Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015." 16. Recently, in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 17 as under : "14. Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal 12 CRA No. 984 of 2025 Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. 15. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. this court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases 13 CRA No. 984 of 2025 where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows: "20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year." 16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in 14 CRA No. 984 of 2025 Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors that: "Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the 2021 (12) SCR 502 [2019] 9 SCR 735 concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2) (a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the same category. 17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, this court, through a three- judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed 15 CRA No. 984 of 2025 age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference." 17. Thus, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution with regard to the age of the victim cannot be held reliable in absence of the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment. 18. The next question for consideration would be whether the appellant has committed the said offence or not. 19. PW-2 victim stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant. She stated that the appellant has not done any incident with her. The witness herself stated that on 5th March 2019, the appellant got married with her. The accused did not come to her house or do anything. The appellant did not say anything to her. The accused did not take her anywhere. The witness herself stated that the appellant married her, kept her and used to have physical relation with her as husband and wife, because of which she became pregnant. On 26 January 2020, she gave birth to a boy who is from Arun Chauhan. In para 9, she stated that she is still living in the house of appellant as his wife. She stated that the appellant is in jail, whom she want to get released. 20. PW-1 father of the victim stated that about three years ago, the victim was missing from his home, so he filed a report at police 16 CRA No. 984 of 2025 station. The witness stated that his daughter had gone to her friend’s house in the village Girhoridih on her own. The accused, never took his daughter anywhere. He stated that his daughter told him that she had gone to her friend’s house and she had not disclosed about any incident. In cross-examination, he stated that the appellant is in jail and that he is his brother-in-law’s son, whom he wants to get released. 21. PW-5 Dr. V. Baghla, conducted the medical examination of victim and stated that she brought her child with her. At the time of the examination, she was not pregnant because her child was less than a month old. She had given birth to a child within a month of examination, which resulted in internal injuries to her genitals, including a ruptured hymen. There were lacerations in the vagina, and the wounds on the vulva, vagina, and cervix had healed. 22. From bare perusal of evidence, it is manifest that the victim herself stated that the appellant did not come to her house and did not take her anywhere. The witness herself stated that the appellant married her, kept her with him and had physical relations with her as husband and wife, due to which she became pregnant. On 26 January 2020, she gave birth to a boy who is from Arun Chauhan. The victim categorically stated in her evidence that she is still living in the house of appellant as his wife and she wants to get him released from jail. The father of the victim also stated that his daughter had gone to her friend’s house 17 CRA No. 984 of 2025 and not clearly stated that the appellant had abducted her daughter. Her father stated that the appellant is in jail and that he is his brother-in-law’s son, whom he wants to get released. 23. In view of above foregoing discussions, it would not be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has abducted the victim and committed rape upon her, rather it reflects from the evidence that the victim is still living in the house of the appellant as his wife and admitted the fact that the appellant married her and from their wedlock, a child has born. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant committed the said offence. 24. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. Apart from that, it has also not proved beyond doubt that at the time of incident, the Victim was minor. 25. Applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case and considering the overall evidence 18 CRA No. 984 of 2025 available on record, the impugned judgment dated 30/04/2025 is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the said charges levelled against him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 26. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep