1 2026:CGHC:7015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1136 of 2016 1 -Vijay Tandi @ Kaju S/o Ugre Singh Aged About 23 Years, 2 - Ugre Singh S/o Devo Tandi Aged About 46 Years, 3 - Smt Radha Bai W/o Ugre Singh Aged About 40 Years, All are R/o Shakti Nagar, Police Station Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 09.02.2026 1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2016 2 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court/Special Court (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), Mahasamund, (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case H-03/2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :- For Appellant No.1- Vijay Tandi & Kaju Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Under Section 363 of the IPC RI for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional RI for 01 month Under Section 366-A of the IPC RI for 04 year and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional RI for 01 month Both sentences shall run concurrently Appellant No.2- Ugre Singh & Appellant No.3-Smt. Radha Bai Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Under Section 363/34 of the IPC RI for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional RI for 01 month 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant namely Gouri Bai has lodged report on 04/09/2015 that at about 9:00 O'clock in the morning the complainant along with his elder son Harish went to Raipur for his treatment, her husband Dasmath went to pull Rickshaw and her daughter prosecutrix aged about 14 years remained at home along with complainant's and other two children. When she came from Raipur at 9:00 O'clock in the night and enquired about prosecutrix then children 3 told her that she has gone outside from some work. The complainant enquired about the prosecutrix in neighborhood and also to relative but got no whereabouts the prosecutrix. Then the complainant lodged the report before police station Mahasamund and FIR has been registered as crime No.387/2015 under section 363 of IPC. On 28/10/2015, she was recovered from appellant's house at Raipur. 3. After recovery of prosecutrix she was enquired about the incident and further she narrated that accused Vijay Tandi @ Kaju enticed her on the pretext of her marriage and taken away her to Rajshthan and solemnized marriage with her and committed rape with her. After that she was taken to Nagpur where the prosecutrix was taken by accused to his aunts house where the stayed for two days. 4. Later on as per the prosecutrix statement a case for an offence under Sections 366, 376, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 was added in the case. The statement of under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix was also recorded before learned court below. 5. After completion of investigation the police has presented the challan before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) wherein Criminal Case was registered. The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) committed the case to the Session trial. 4 6. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) framed the charges under Section 363/34 of IPC against the appellants. 7. In order to prove the charges against the appellants (accused), prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellants. 8. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as described in para one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellants without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellants. He further contended the prosecution has failed to prove that at the date of incident, the prosecutrix was minor. He further contended that the learned court below failed to appreciate that as per prosecutrix has stated in her testimonial statement before the court below and stated that she was living in a house separately along with Vijay and at the time of recovery of prosecutrix from the appellant's house the appellant's were not present she has further stated as long as she stayed with the accused 5 Vijay, she never met with present appellant at any point of time. He further contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the independent witnesses did not supported the case of prosecution so the conviction of the appellant is bad in law. The trial court has failed to appreciate that Doctor has medically examined as such there is no external injury was found in the body of prosecutrix. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that it has been admitted by the PW-2 in his deposition that the report was lodged against the family members of the prosecutrix and just to harass the appellant the present report was lodged against the appellant. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2016 and acquit the appellants from the charges imposed upon them. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record of the trial Court and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. In order to consider the age of prosecutrix, I have to examine the evidence/material placed on record by the 6 prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the dakhil/kharij register (Article A-1) of the prosecutrix, wherein date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned as 02.02.2000. 13. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated in her deposition that at the time of incident, age of the prosecutrix was 16 years, he does not remember her date of birth. 14. Headmaster (PW-6) has stated in cross-examination that when a child was admitted to Class-I, no documents regarding date of birth were taken from his/her parents; the date of birth was recorded as per their information. Currently, regarding date of birth the document is taken. She cannot tell that on what basis prosecutrix’s date of birth was recorded in the admission/discharge register. She do not remember when she signed parts a to c of Ex.P. 11. 15. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for presumption and determination of age. The same reads as under : “94. Presumption and determination of age.— (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, 7 the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining— (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. 8 (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person. 16. There is no any documentary evidence available on record that on what basis date of birth of prosecutrix 02.02.2000 is mentioned and also no birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Panchayat has been produced regarding date of birth of prosecutrix. Copy of Kotwari Register is also not produced with regard to age of the prosecutrix. Even the ossification test of the prosecutrix has not been conducted. There is no legally admissible evidence with regard to age of prosecutrix that on the date of incident, she was minor and less than 18 years of age. In absence of examination of author of the School Admission and Discharge Register, the same cannot be taken into consideration to determine the age of the prosecutrix. School Admission and Discharge Register is a weak type of evidence. 17. In case of Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2011(2) SCC-385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer certificate which is issued by Government school and is duly signed by the Headmaster would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the 9 prosecutrix in the absence of any material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The Hon'ble Supreme court held that 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. 18. In paragraphs 40, 42, 43, 44 and 48 of its judgment in Alamelu (Supra), 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 10 date of birth is examined. 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 11 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 Jaiswal, 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 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. 12 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 13 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 accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted.” 19. 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 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 14 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. 20. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2022 (8) SCC 602, this Court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases 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 15 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 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. 16 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 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.” 21.Reverting the facts of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution has mainly relied upon the admission/discharge register Article A-1/C to prove the age of the victim in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 02.02.2000. In this regard Headmistress Dereshwari Sharma (PW-6) has stated that she has posted at that school since 2011. However the admission/discharge register Article A1/C is from 24.06.2005 to 05.07.2005, therefore, it is crystal clear that at the time of maintaining the admission/discharge register, she was not posted in that school. On perusal of Article A/1-C, it also reveals that the date of birth was written by the then Headmaster -Anda Gouri and the prosecution has not examined the Headmaster-Anda Gouri. So author of the admission/discharge register has also not been examined by the prosecution and the prosecution has not produced the birth certificate of the prosecutrix and prosecution has failed to conduct the ossification test of the prosecution to determine the age of the prosecutrix. After considering the evidence collected by the prosecution and in the light of 17 the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find that no clinching and legally admissible evidence has been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. Accordingly, I set aside the findings given by the trial Court that on the date of incident, the victim was minor as the same has not been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and clinching evidence. 22. In order to consider the medical report of prosecutrix, I have to examine the evidence available on record produced by the prosecution. 23. Dr. Okeshwari Sahu (PW-13) who examined the prosecutrix has stated that during the examination, she found that, according to the victim, she had been sexually assaulted for a month. Her last menstrual period was reported as October 23,2015. A general examination revealed that the victim was an average-sized girl with developed secondary sexual characteristics. There were no fresh injuries on her external body. On internal examination, it was found that pubic hair was developed. Some amount of pubic hair was taken and preserved for chemical examination. The hymen was found to be torn. After examining the vagina, two slides were prepared from the vaginal secretions and the secretions from the posterior pharynx, which were preserved for chemical examination. The two slides and the pubic hair were sealed for chemical examination. The victim was advised to undergo a pregnancy test as her menstrual period 18 was delayed. In her opinion, sexual intercourse was performed with the victim. An opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse can be given after chemical examination of the slide. The examination report is Ex.P/2. 24. The fact of commission of rape stated by the prosecutrix (PW-1) that the incident occurred in the year 2015. She voluntarily left her home in Mahasamund for Raipur with the accused Vijay, intending to marry him. The accused Vijay did not lure her away. The accused did not commit any misconduct against her. After she left home, her mother lodged FIR against the accused. 25. Close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution would make it clear that the prosecutrix has nowhere disclosed that at any point of time, the appellant has committed rape, therefore, it appears that it is a case of elopement. 26. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the evidence with regard to the age and conduct of the prosecutrix, I am of the opinion that the age of the prosecutrix is not verified and it is a case of elopement. It is considered opinion of this Court, the prosecutrix is a consenting party, therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, offence under Sections as mentioned in Paragraph-1 of this judgment would not be made out against the appellants. 19 27. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside. Appellants stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at that stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (Section 481 of BNSS). 28. The trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant