Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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