Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case

20 September 2024 3:45 PM

By: sayum


High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of B. Sonu v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 550 of 2020) acquitted the appellant accused under Sections 376(3), 363, and 366 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and found her to be a consenting party.

The case arose from an incident on December 13, 2014, where the prosecutrix, aged 15, was allegedly abducted and raped by the accused, B. Sonu. The prosecutrix's father reported her missing, and she was later recovered from the appellant's possession. The appellant was charged under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The central issues were whether the prosecutrix was below 18 years at the time of the incident and whether she consented to the appellant's actions. The prosecution relied on the school admission register to establish her age, while the defense argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

The prosecutrix testified about the appellant's alleged use of force and her abduction. However, contradictions emerged during her cross-examination, where she admitted willingly accompanying the appellant on a motorcycle. The court found several discrepancies in her statements and noted her apparent consent to the appellant’s actions.

Regarding the prosecutrix's age, the court cited the Supreme Court judgments in Manak Chand alias Mani v. State of Haryana and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, emphasizing that the school admission register's entry lacked evidentiary value without supporting testimony or documentation. The court found that the birth certificate was not duly proven, and the parents could not provide a clear basis for her recorded date of birth. As a result, it concluded that the prosecutrix's age was not conclusively proven to be below 18.

Given the lack of definitive proof of the prosecutrix's age and evidence of her consent, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under the IPC and POCSO Act. The trial court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted B. Sonu, finding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that her age was not conclusively proven to be below 18. This case underscores the importance of reliable evidence in determining the age and consent in sexual offense cases under the POCSO Act and IPC.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

B. Sonu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Latest Legal News