School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case

High Court of Chhattisgarh acquitted the appellant, Mahesh Sahu, of charges under Sections 376(1) (rape) and 450 (house trespass to commit an offense) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Rajani Dubey held that the prosecution failed to establish the prosecutrix’s age as a minor and that the evidence presented did not meet the required standard of proof for a conviction.
The Court emphasized that, “Entries in school records cannot be relied upon without corroboration by the person making the entry or providing the information. There is no evidence to show on what basis the prosecutrix’s date of birth was entered in the school register. Furthermore, the absence of a medical examination to determine her age undermines the prosecution’s case.” The judgment relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Alamelu v. State (2011) 2 SCC 385 and Manak Chand v. State of Haryana (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397), which reiterate that school records alone are inadmissible unless substantiated by supporting testimony or evidence.
"Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix Must Inspire Confidence for Conviction"
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for allegedly raping a prosecutrix, stated to be 12 years old, on July 10, 2004. The conviction was based on the prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborated by school records to establish her age. The High Court, however, found serious inconsistencies in her statements and held that her testimony lacked credibility.
Justice Dubey observed, “While the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can form the basis for conviction, it must inspire confidence, be trustworthy, and of sterling quality. In this case, the prosecutrix admitted that she lodged the complaint under the influence of the Sarpanch, who assured her monetary compensation of ₹25,000. Furthermore, her own statement revealed contradictions regarding the sequence of events, undermining the reliability of her testimony.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Choudhary (2019) 11 SCC 575, which held that the testimony of a prosecutrix, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient for conviction provided it inspires confidence. It also relied on Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, which emphasizes that the testimony of a prosecutrix must be absolutely trustworthy and free from suspicion.
"Medical Evidence Did Not Support Prosecution’s Case"
The medical examination of the prosecutrix revealed no injuries or signs of sexual assault. PW-15, Dr. Jaya Phuljhele, who examined the prosecutrix, testified that her hymen was old torn, and she was habitual to sexual intercourse. The Court noted that the absence of physical injuries contradicted the prosecutrix’s allegations of a forcible assault.
“Medical evidence is a crucial factor in corroborating allegations of rape, especially when the prosecutrix claims force and violence. In the present case, the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix’s body or private parts, coupled with her medical history, raises serious doubts about the occurrence of the alleged incident,” the Court stated.
"Prosecution Failed to Prove the Guilt of the Accused Beyond Reasonable Doubt"
The Court criticized the prosecution for failing to produce conclusive evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt. It noted that the prosecutrix’s statements were inconsistent, and there was no eyewitness testimony to corroborate her allegations. The case was further weakened by the prosecutrix’s admission that the complaint was lodged due to external influence and promises of monetary compensation.
The Court observed, “The evidence on record points to a lack of independent corroboration, and the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements cast serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The prosecution’s case rests on shaky grounds, and it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction based on such evidence.”
"Benefit of Doubt Extended to the Accused"
Given the lack of reliable evidence, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside his conviction. Justice Dubey concluded, “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecutrix is not of sterling quality, which is necessary to convict the accused in a rape case. Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all charges.”
The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC, and his bail bonds were ordered to remain in force for six months in accordance with Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Key Observations from the Judgment
On Age Determination: The Court reiterated that school records, such as admission registers, require corroboration by the person who made the entries or provided the information. In the absence of such testimony, these records lack evidentiary value.
The judgment relied on Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, which stated, “The date of birth mentioned in the school register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or provided the date of birth is examined.”
On Testimony of the Prosecutrix: While the testimony of a prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction, the Court emphasized that it must inspire confidence. “The inconsistencies and external influence in the prosecutrix’s statements render her testimony unreliable,” the Court noted.
On Medical Evidence: The absence of physical injuries or corroborative medical evidence undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court remarked, “Medical evidence plays a vital role in rape cases, especially where allegations of force are made.”
On Delay in Filing FIR: The Court took note of the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and found the explanation unsatisfactory. The prosecutrix admitted that the complaint was lodged days after the incident at the Sarpanch’s insistence, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. The appellant, Mahesh Sahu, was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC, with the Court extending the benefit of doubt.
 

Date of Decision: January 23, 2025