SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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