The High Court allowed an appeal and acquitted the appellant. Finding no reliable evidence that the prosecutrix was under 18, the court held the charge under Section 376 IPC was not sustainable where she was a consenting party, quashing the conviction.
Appellant acquitted, impugned judgment quashed, bail bond discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2002
Venkateshwar Kumar @ Banti S/o Budhram Sahu, aged about 23 years R/o Village Khadma, P.S. Chura, Distt. Raipur (C.G.).
----Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.).
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Seema Dixit, PL for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board
04/12/2019
2
examined by Dr. D. Kudeshiya (PW5). Her report is Ex.P-27. Dakhil Kharij register of the Prosecutrix was also seized. According to entries of Dakhil Kharij register, the date of birth of the Prosecutrix has been recorded as 07/08/1986. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed. Trial Court framed the charges. As many as 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.
3
the case of the prosecution. He further submits that there is no clinching evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be said that at the relevant time, the Prosecutrix was below 18 years, therefore, the conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.
4
Even, he was not able to tell that after how many years of his marriage, the Prosecutrix took birth. This witness has further deposed that he performed marriage at the age of 12 – 13 years, but he was unable to tell that after how many years his Gona took place. The Prosecutrix herself was unable to tell her date of birth. She was also unable to tell that at what age she was admitted in school. To determine the age of the Prosecutrix no ossification test was performed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge
Rahul
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged offence.
Whether the entry in the Dakhil Kharij register conclusively establishes the age of the Prosecutrix.
Whether an offence was made out given the finding that the Prosecutrix was a consenting party.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Venkateshwar Kumar @ Banti
State of Chhattisgarh
Arvind Singh Chandel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
