No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme 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