1 CGHC010262012018 2026:CGHC:29739-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 325 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Shivrinarayan District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Anil Kumar Kashyap, S/o Rameshwar Kashyap, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Kuriyari, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nishtha Singh, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 14.07.2026 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05/12/2017 passed in Special Criminal Case No.26/2017 (Crime No.89/2017), whereby, the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Janjgir Champa (CG), has acquitted the respondent-Anil Kumar Kashyap for commission of the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC read with Section 4 of the NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.07.16 15:06:07 +0530 2 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act, 2012’) and, in alternatively under Section 376 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent-Anil Kumar Kashyap was charged for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Act, 2012 and in alternatively under Section 376 of IPC in connection with Crime No. 89/2017 based upon a written complaint (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix, a minor, aged about 17 years and 9 months old, before the in-charge Police Station Shivrinarayan on 26/04/2017, wherein, it was alleged that on 24/01/2017, when she and her cousin namely, Sanjeev were at home and were sleeping in different rooms, the respondent entered into her room around 3.00 A.M. and closed the door from inside and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully, despite the resistance being made by her and fled away, while opening the door when it was knocked by her cousin. The charges so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a minor aged about 17 years and 9 months old by placing reliance upon the Dakhil-Kharij Register, proved by the Assistant Teacher of Government Primary School, Kuriyari and, held further that since the occurrence of the alleged incident was not found to be established by the medical report, the respondent, therefore, cannot be held liable and in consequence, he was acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime. 4. 4. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State 3 submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime merely on the ground that the alleged allegation of the prosecutrix is not found to be supported by the medical evidence, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. While referring to the statement of the prosecutirx (PW-1) and her cousin (PW-3), who was with her on the said fateful day, submits that since the alleged version of her was corroborated by him, therefore, the respondent ought to have been convicted for the commission of the alleged crime. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Nishtha Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. According to the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it appears that on the said fateful day i.e. on 24/01/2017 around 3.00 A.M., she and her cousin, namely, Sanjeev were at home and were sleeping in different rooms and, the respondent-Anil Kumar at the relevant point of time, entered into her room and, locked the door from inside and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that he fled away after opening the door when it was knocked by her cousin-Sanjeev. It appears further that the engagement of the prosecurtrix was made on the same day in the evening with the 4 respondent, but later on, his father-Rameshwar has refused to marry his son with her, which led to lodging of the alleged report (Ex.P-1) on 26/04/2017. 8. Her cousin-Sanjeev (PW-3), who was with her on the said fateful day, has deposed that upon hearing the noise in the house, he came out from his room and has seen the light of the verandah was on, while his sister’s room was off and, the noise was coming from her room and knocked the door of her room, owing to which, the respondent came out and fled away. It appears further from his testimony that, later on, he heard that the engagement of his sister was made with the respondent, but after some time, his father has refused to get married his son with her and, the father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-2, had come to know about the occurrence of the alleged incident from them. 9. A close scrutiny of their testimonies, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix and her cousin-Sanjeev, would reveal the fact that the respondent, on the said fateful day, had entered into her room around 3.00 A.M. But, the alleged of her allegation that she was sexually exploited by him was, however, not found to be corroborated by the medical evidence, as Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-11), who examined her on 26/04/2017, has neither found any injuries on her body, nor any kind of symptom that she was sexually abused, nor even the semen, was found on her clothes as well as that on the clothes of the respondent, when it were sent for chemical examination as evident from the FSL report (Ex.P-21). She was, thus, not found to be abused sexually by 5 him, as alleged by her in her alleged report dated 26/04/2017 (Ex.P-1). 10. It is now to be seen as to whether the respondent had entered into her room on the said fateful day forcefully, or was it with the consent of the prosecutrix. 11. As observed herein-above, her cousin-Sanjeev was sleeping in different room of her house on the said fateful day and after hearing the noise, he got up and had seen the light of the verandah of the house was on, while his sister’s room was off and when he knocked the door of her room, then only, the respondent fled away after opening it. It is, thus, evident that it was possible only with the consent of her, else the door of her room would neither had been closed from inside, nor the light of her room would have been off. The respondent has, thus, found to be entered into her room only with her consent and, therefore, it cannot be said that he entered into her room forcefully, as alleged by her in the report (Ex.P-1), lodged on 26/04/2017, much after a considerable period of more than two months from the date of occurrence of the alleged incident. 12. The focal point is now to ascertain whether she was minor on the said fateful day to give her consent for permitting him to enter her house. 13. According to the prosecutrix (PW-1), she was 17 years and 9 months old, at the time of occurrence of the incident, occurred on 24/01/2017, when the respondent entered into her room and, in order to establish her minority, a Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-9‘C’), issued by the Government Primary School of Village Kuriyari and, the certificate 6 (Ex.P-11) issued based upon the said register, were produced, wherein, her date of birth has shown to be “07/04/1999” and, in order to prove the same, the Assistant Teacher, namely, Pushram Kashyap (PW-5) of the concerned School was examined. It, however, appears from para-4 of his testimony that the alleged entry regarding her date of birth was neither made by him, nor was unable to state how it was entered as such. And, the person, who made the alleged entry was not examined. Even, the father (PW-2) of the prosecutrix was unable to state that on what basis the date of birth of his daughter was recorded as such therein. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove who made the alleged entry or under what basis, the alleged entry regarding her date of birth was made therein, nor even the bone ossification test was conducted for the determination of her age. In view of such circumstances, the alleged entry made therein is of no evidentiary value in order to arrive to a conclusion that she was minor below the age of 18 years as defined under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 2012. 14. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Manak Chand alias Mani vs. State of Haryana’ reported in (2024) 20 SCC 561, wherein while placing reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the earlier matter of ‘Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohi’ reported in 1988 (Suppl.) SCC 604, held at para 18 and 21 as under :- ‘18. This Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohi 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: 7 "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." 21………….... Under the facts and circumstances of the case, what was required to be done was a bone ossification test in order to come to some reliable conclusion as to the age of the prosecutrix. This has evidently not been done …………....” 15. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- referred matter, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon such an entry made in the Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-9 ‘C’) in order to hold that she was minor on the date of the occurrence of the alleged incident and, the finding recorded by the trial Court holding the prosecutrix to be a minor below the age of 18 years based upon the alleged Dakhil-Kharij Register, thus, deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. 16. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit is, dismissed, though on different reasonings. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Judge Kamde