1 2026:CGHC:5905-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 90 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Somani, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Manohar Dewangan Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Baghera, Mahavir Chowk, Ward No. 17, Police Station Somani District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Motiram Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Banbaghera, Ward No. 7, Police Station Somani District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents/accused For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Manohar Dewangan and Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocates. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (03rd February, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Special Criminal Case No.50/2017 acquitting 2 the respondents/accused of the charges under Section 376(2), 376(D), 506 of IPC and Sections 4/16 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.9.2017 the prosecutrix, a student of Class X, went to watch Dusshera festival in the village with her friends Suman Nishad, Rumti Sahu and Lalita Sahu. However, at around 8.30 pm the accused Manohar Dewangan dragged her into the house of accused Motirum Sahu and there he committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he left her at some distance with a threatening to kill if she disclosed the incident to anyone. However, she narrated the whole incident on 8.10.2017 to her mother and others and thereafter, lodged a report Ex.P/5 at the police station. During investigation, spot map was prepared, the prosecutrix was got medically examined, statements of the witnesses including statement u/s 164 of CrPC of the prosecutrix were recorded and admission- discharge register of the school and progress report of the prosecutrix were seized. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(2), 506, 376-D of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act against accused Manohar Dewangan and under Section 376-D of IPC and Section 4/16 of POCSO Act against accused Motiram Sahu. They denied the charges and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution 3 examined 15 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecutrix remained silent about the incident because of threatening extended to her by the accused persons and after a few days she narrated the whole incident to her mother and decided to lodge a report. She has categorically stated about their act in her statements u/s 161 and 164 of CrPC as also in her deposition denied the adverse suggestions of the defence. Her statement finds due corroboration from the statement of her mother. He further submits that the learned trial Court also committed illegality in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of incident whereas the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establish the fact that she was minor at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the impugned 4 judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused are liable to be held guilty of the charges leveled against them and sentenced accordingly. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment jointly submit that the learned trial Court having minutely examined the oral and documentary evidence rightly recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused and there is nothing on record to suggest that the said finding is unjust or perverse. They submit that the prosecution has not proved in accordance with law that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the relevant time. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that accused Manohar Dewangan was charged under Sections 376(2), 506, 376-D of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act whereas accused Motiram Sahu was charged under Section 376-D of IPC and Section 4/16 of POCSO Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court acquitted both of them of all the charges by the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of 5 age on the date of incident and it is proved that she was a consenting party to the act of the accused. 09. PW-2 prosecutrix states that she studies in Class X. On 30.9.2017 when she went with her friends Rumti, Suman, Faleshwari and Lalita Sahu to see Dusshera festival, the accused Manohar and Motiram came to her and told that she was being called by her mother. On this pretext, they took her to the house of accused Motiram and outraged her modesty. She somehow escaped from there, however, she was again forcibly taken and subjected to rape. Accused Manohar threatened her of life if she disclosed the incident to her mother. She states that on that day she did not tell her mother about the incident but later on she narrated the incident to her mother and lodged a report with the police i.e. Ex.P/5. She admits her signature on the spot map Ex.P/6, seizure memo Ex.P/1 whereby her underwear was seized; patawari map Ex.P/2 and her medical report Ex.P/4 as also her statement recorded before the Magistrate Ex.P/7. She states that accused Motiram was also with accused Manohar while he (Manohar) was forcibly taking her away and that Motiram accompanied him to some distance and then returned. In cross-examination she admits that she used to talk to accused Manohar over mobile phone. She also admits that at the time of incident she had completed 18 ½ years of age. At this juncture, when the learned trial Court enquired from her about her age on the date of 6 incident, she replied that it was 17 ½ years. When the Court again equired as to why she stated that on 30.9.2017 she was 18 ½ years, she replied that it is her current age. She also admits in para 17 that accused Manohar being a resident of her village, is well known to her. She admits that she lodged report against accused Manohar at the behest of her mother only. She states that she does not remember as to on what basis her date of birth is recorded in the school records. In para 22 she admits that she had friendship with accused Manohar and she used to talk to him, which was not liked by her mother and at her instance she lodged the report. In para 23 she admits her affair with accused Manohar and that they often talk to each other over phone. She states that she remembers the mobile number of accused Manohar. She admits that her mother told her to give statement against accused Manohar. She also admits that there is some money dispute between uncle of accused Manohar namely Bhishma Dewangan and her mother. 10. PW-1 mother of the prosecutrix states that her daughter informed her about rape by the accused Manohar after about 08 days of incident. In cross-examination she admits that she did not submit the birth certificate of her daughter/prosecutrix at the police station and also did not get her date of birth registered in Gadchiroli (Maharashtra) where she was born. She admits the suggestion of the defence that they purchase ration on credit from the shop of Bhisma Dewangan, uncle of accused Manohar, but denies the suggestion that there is 7 some money dispute with Bhisma Dewangan. She admits that she returned from Dusshera fair with the prosecutrix at about 10 pm and while returning the prosecutrix did not tell her anything about the incident. She then volunteers that as the prosecutrix was threatened, she did not disclose the incident to her. She admits that when they went to lodge report, panch of the village Rajendra Yadu was with them. She admits that before going to police station, she had called Manohar and his family members to her house but they did not come. She admits that had they come to her house, she would not have gone to lodge report. 11. PW-3 Faleshwari Nishad, PW-4 Suman Nishad and PW-5 Rumti Sahu, friends of the prosecutrix, stated that on the date of incident they went with the prosecutrix to witness Dusshera festival and returned home at around 9 pm. They were declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined where they denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. 12. Dr. Ekta Danial (PW-11) medically examined the prosecutrix on 9.10.2017 and did not find any external or internal injury on her body and opined that she did not notice any symptom of recent forcible sexual intercourse. Her report is Ex.P/4. 13. The prosecution has filed copy of admission-discharge register of the school as Ex.P/17 and progress report of the prosecutrix as 8 Ex.P/19. The inspector Sanjay Pudir (PW-10) states that he seized the admission-discharge register from the Incharge Head Master of the primary school as per seizure memo Ex.P/15, the register is Ex.P/17 and its certified copy is Ex.P/18. The prosecution did not examine the Head Master or any other person to prove this document. Further, the prosecution has filed progress report of the prosecutrix of Class VIII as Ex.P/19. In the said register and progress report, her date of birth is recorded as 9.4.2000. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manak Chand alias Mani vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC Online SC 1397 has reiterated the law laid down by it in the matter of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supl.) SCC 604 and observed that the date of birth in the register of the school would not have any evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person who gave the date of birth. It was further reiterated that if the date of birth is disclosed by the parents, it would have some evidentiary value but in absence the same cannot be relied upon. For sake of brevity para No. 14 & 15 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “14 This Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988) Supp SCC 604 had observed that the date of birth in the register of a school would not have any evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person who gave the date of birth. “14…. The date of birth mentioned in the scholar’s 9 register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar’s register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar’s register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth such an entry will have no evidentiary value.” 15. In our opinion, the proof submitted by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there were contradictory evidences before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. It was neither safe nor fair to convict the accused, particularly when the age of the prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case.” 15. In the case in hand, the prosecution has merely filed copy of admission-discharge register and progress report of the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth is recorded as 9.4.2000 and thus the prosecution attempted to show that she was about 17 years and 6 months on the date of incident. However, neither the Head Master of the school is examined in this case nor the person who made entry regarding date of birth in these documents is examined. It was 10 obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove as to on what basis such entry was made in these documents. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove age of the prosecutrix to be below 18 years on the date of incident. Further, looking to the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother coupled with the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto as also the manner in which the incident is said to have taken place, their evidence does not inspire confidence. Rather it appears that she was a consenting party to the act of the accused persons. In these circumstances, no offence as alleged against the accused/appellants is made out and as such, the finding of their acquittal recorded by learned trial Court being based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record cannot be faulted with. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be 11 comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, considering the oral and documentary evidence including the medical evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the overall evidence on record and as such, we do not find any good reason to interfere with this finding. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.02.05 10:10:22 +0530