1 CGHC010359522019 2026:CGHC:30265-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1536 of 2019 Manoj Kumar Chandane S/o Jagat Ram Chandane Aged About 33 Years R/o Harsindi Police Station Dongargarh District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Pulgaon Post- Anjora, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (14.07.2026) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.17 14:37:36 +0530 2 Judge/Special Judge (Court constituted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"), Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No.102/2017, State of Chhattisgarh v. Manoj Kumar Chandane, (herein after referred to as “impugned judgment/order”) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 376 (2) of the IPC as also U/s. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 [However, in light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, sentenced/punished only U/s 376(2) of IPC] Life imprisonment (imprisonment for the remainder of natural life) and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, RI for 1 month. U/s 506 (Part-I) of IPC RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 10 days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Prosecution story 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the victim (PW-1), a resident of Village Kalyanpur, had been residing with her maternal grandfather (PW-2) at Village Rasmada since her childhood. It is alleged that in May, 2013, when her mother had sustained burn injuries and was undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, Durg, the appellant, being a 3 relative of the victim, had come to the house of her maternal grandfather and was also visiting the hospital to see her mother. On the date of the incident, when the victim was alone in the house, and the other family members had gone to the hospital, the appellant allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her (victim) and threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the incident to anyone. Owing to such a threat, she did not narrate the incident to anybody. It is further alleged that in the year 2016, she shifted to her native village Kalyanpur. Thereafter, in January, 2017, when she had gone to Village Haransindhi to attend a village fair and stayed at the house of the appellant, he again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her during the night. Out of fear, she again remained silent. About one week prior to lodging the FIR dated 07.06.2017, her maternal aunt informed her that the appellant had also misbehaved with her. Thereafter, gathering courage, the victim disclosed both the incidents to her maternal uncle, pursuant to which a written complaint (Ex.P-1) was lodged at Police Station Dongargarh on 07.06.2017, based on which FIR was registered. During investigation, the school admission and discharge register relating to the age of the victim was seized, she was medically examined, the slides prepared by the doctor and her undergarments were seized and sent for chemical 4 examination, statements of the witnesses were recorded and, upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence was adduced in defence. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the first alleged incident is of the year 2013 whereas the second incident is stated to have occurred in January, 2017, but the report was lodged only on 07.06.2017 after an unexplained delay of about four years from the first incident, which renders the entire prosecution case highly doubtful. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish, by legally admissible evidence, that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident. The school admission register relied upon by the 5 prosecution has not been proved in accordance with law, as the person who made the relevant entry regarding the date of birth has not been examined, nor have the parents of the victim been examined to establish her actual date of birth. It is also argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated owing to previous disputes between the appellant and the maternal uncle of the victim. The written complaint (Ex.P-1) is stated to have been scribed by the maternal uncle, who has not been examined. The testimony of the victim is not corroborated either by the medical evidence or by the FSL report. Even the maternal uncle and maternal aunt, who are said to have played a crucial role in disclosure of the incident and explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, have not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, it is submitted that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhanshu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 743. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence 6 available on record. It is contended that the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and inspires confidence. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The conviction of the appellant is primarily based upon the testimony of the victim (PW-1), who, in her deposition before the trial Court, stated her date of birth to be 29.08.2000. According to her, the first alleged incident occurred in May, 2013 and the second incident took place in January, 2017. Thus, there is a gap of about four years between the two alleged incidents. 9. Dr. Kalpana Sharma (PW-5), who medically examined the victim, has deposed that she had advised radiological examination for determination of the age of the victim. However, no ossification test report or any radiological report has been brought on record to establish her age. In order to prove the date of birth, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Prasad Netam (PW-6), Headmaster of Government 7 Primary School, Ganiyari Dandeshara, District Durg (C.G.), who produced the school admission and discharge register (Ex.P-12), wherein the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 29.08.2000 and the date of her admission to Class-I is shown as 16.06.2006. Significantly, the witness admitted that the relevant entry regarding the date of birth was not made by him. He further admitted that no document was available in the school record to indicate the basis on which the said date of birth had been recorded. According to him, the then Headmaster had entered the date of birth on the basis of the Transfer Certificate issued by the previous school. Thus, the only documentary evidence regarding age of the victim is the school admission register (Ex.P-12), whose evidentiary value is required to be examined in the light of the settled principles of law. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manak Chand alias Mani v. 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 8 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 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.” 11. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Alamelu and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 9 (2011) 2 SCC 385 has held that:- “the transfer certificate which is issued by a government school and is duly signed by Headmaster would be admissible in evidence u/s 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 prosecutrix in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The Supreme Court held under the facts and circumstances of the case 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.” 12. How, dakhil-kharij register is treated to be relevant came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and another (2008) 13 SCC 133, wherein it has been held as under:- “22. It is well settled that it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. The date of birth is to be determined on the basis of material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. The Medical evidence as to the age of a person, though a very useful guiding factor, is not conclusive and has to be considered along with other cogent evidence. 28. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by 10 law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. (See: Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1997) 4 SCC 24).” 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 742 has held as under:- “26.Bishan, PW8, the father of the prosecutrix has also not been able to give correct date of birth of the prosecutrix. In his statement he clearly stated that he is giving an approximate date without any basis or record. In a criminal case, the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on an approximate date which is not supported by any record. It would be quite unsafe to base conviction on an approximate date. 34. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unsafe to convict the appellant when there are so many infirmities, holes and lacunas in the prosecution version. The appellant is clearly entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any case.” 14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, if the evidence available in the present case is examined, it would be evident that although the victim has stated her date of birth 11 to be 29.08.2000 and the same date finds place in the school admission register (Ex.P-12), the prosecution has failed to establish the authenticity of the said entry. Ordinarily, the date of birth of a child is recorded either on the basis of information furnished by the parents or guardians or on the strength of an authentic document. In the present case, though the maternal grandfather (PW-2) has been examined, he could not state the date of birth of the victim. Neither of her parents has been examined. Further, the witness who produced the school register was unable to disclose the basis on which the date of birth was originally entered in the register. Thus, there is no authentic evidence to establish the date of birth of the victim. In such circumstances, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was born on 29.08.2000 and that she was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident. 15. The victim (PW-1), while supporting the prosecution case before the Court, has deposed that in May, 2013, when all the family members had gone to the hospital where her mother was undergoing treatment and she was alone in the house of her maternal grandfather, the appellant 12 committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the incident to anyone. Significantly, however, no report was lodged for almost four years. According to the victim, the second incident occurred in January, 2017, when she had gone to Village Haransindhi to attend a village fair and had stayed at the house of the appellant, where he again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her during the night. It is pertinent to note that the victim has not stated whether any other members of the appellant's family were present in the house at the relevant time or, if they were present, why she did not seek their help. She has also been unable to specify the exact dates of either of the alleged incidents. 16. In her cross-examination, the victim stated that she disclosed the incidents to her maternal aunt and maternal uncle only after her maternal aunt informed her that the appellant had also misbehaved with her. However, neither the maternal aunt nor the maternal uncle has been examined by the prosecution. In the absence of their testimony, the explanation offered by the prosecution for the inordinate delay of about four years in lodging the FIR remains wholly unsubstantiated. The plea that the victim remained silent merely because of fear for such a prolonged 13 period and disclosed the incidents only after learning about the alleged incident involving her maternal aunt appears to be doubtful. Consequently, the delay of about four years in lodging the report has not been satisfactorily explained and assumes considerable significance in the facts of the present case. 17. Dr. Kalpana Sharma (PW-5), who medically examined the victim on 20.06.2017, has proved her medical examination report (Ex.P-10). She has categorically stated that no external or internal injuries were found on the private part of the victim and that her hymen was old torn. She also prepared two vaginal slides for chemical examination. However, she did not express any opinion suggestive of recent sexual intercourse. Thus, the medical evidence does not lend corroboration to the prosecution case with regard to the alleged incidents. 18. As per the FSL report (Ex.P-26) of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, neither semen stains nor human sperm were detected on the undergarments of the victim or on the vaginal slides collected during her medical examination. Thus, the version of the victim does not receive support either from the medical evidence or from the FSL report. 14 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Sudhanshu Sekhar Sahoo (Supra), has considered the evidentiary value of the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix. Since the principles laid down therein have a direct bearing on the issues involved in the present case, the relevant observations contained in paragraphs 9, 18 and 19 of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: “9. It is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to be given due weight. Sexual violence is a dehumanising act and it is an unlawful encroachment into the right to privacy and sanctity of a woman. The courts also should be strict and vigilant to protect the society from such evils. It is in the interest of the society that serious crimes like rape should be effectively investigated. It is equally important that there must be fairness to all sides. In a criminal case, the court has to consider the triangulation of interests. It involves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her family and the public. The purpose of criminal law is to permit everyone to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property. 18. It is well settled that in rape cases the conviction can be solely based on the evidence of the victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the court. The victim is not treated as an accomplice, but could only be characterised 15 as injured witness. It is also reasonable to assume that no woman would falsely implicate a person in a sexual offence as the honour and prestige of that woman also would be at stake. However, the evidence of the prosecution shall be cogent and convincing and if there is any supporting material likely to be available, then the rule of prudence requires that evidence of the victim may be supported by such corroborative material. 19. Unfortunately, the broad probabilities of the case were not considered by the Sessions Court or the High Court in the instant case. Ms X, though asserted that she had sustained scratch injuries by nails and biting, her medical examination did not reveal any such injuries. It is true that in view of the social conditions prevalent in India, there may be delay in giving the first information of such an offence to the police. A rape victim may think seriously before giving the information to the police about rape as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life. Though the delay as such is not serious, but while considering the broad probabilities of the case, the delay in giving the information to the police, in the instant case, also assumes some importance. Though the past conduct of the prosecutrix is an irrelevant matter, in the instant case, Ms X asserted that she was a virgin till the alleged incident, but the medical evidence supported by her physical features revealed that she was habituated to 16 sex. All these factors cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case. Though there is no apparent motive for Ms X to falsely implicate the appellant, it may be that Ms X must have changed her mind when she came to know that others must have come to know of her conduct. So there are so many loose ends in the prosecution case. On a consideration of the broad probabilities of the case, we feel that various factors cast a serious doubt about the genuineness of the case of Ms X that she had been forcibly ravished by the appellant. The appellant is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt. Therefore, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 342 IPC and allow his appeal. The appellant was granted bail by this Court. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled.” 20. In Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 763, the Hon’ble Apex Court has cautioned that in cases resting solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, unexplained or inadequately explained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with absence of supporting medical or other evidence, makes it unsafe to sustain a conviction. 21. In the light of the aforesaid principles and on a careful appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incidents. The 17 testimony of the victim is not corroborated either by the medical evidence or by the forensic evidence. The explanation furnished for the inordinate delay in lodging the report has remained unproved, as neither the maternal aunt nor the maternal uncle, who are stated to be the persons before whom the victim first disclosed the incidents, has been examined. Furthermore, the written complaint (Ex.P-1) is stated to have been scribed by the maternal uncle, who has also not entered the witness-box. These circumstances create serious doubts regarding the prosecution case and entitle the appellant to the benefit of doubt. 22. It is also pertinent to note that the maternal grandfather (PW-2) did not support the prosecution in material particulars and was declared hostile. In his cross- examination, he stated that the victim, who is his grand daughter, is mentally weak and is susceptible to influence. He further deposed that the appellant had a dispute with his daughter-in-law (the victim's maternal aunt), and only thereafter did the victim allege that the appellant had also committed rape upon her, although she had never made any such allegation earlier. Having regard to the testimony of PW-2 and the cumulative effect of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 18 testimony of the victim does not inspire confidence to such an extent as to form the sole basis of conviction. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserve to be set aside. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the above referred judgments, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offences. 24. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 25. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith, for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge H.L. Sahu