The High Court of Chhattisgarh, while upholding the conviction and 10-year sentence of a man for the rape of a minor, has affirmed a crucial legal principle: a matriculation certificate, if available and authentic, serves as conclusive evidence for determining a victim’s age. The Court, presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, dismissed the criminal appeal, holding that the victim’s consistent testimony was sufficient for conviction and her consent was legally irrelevant as she was proven to be under 18.
The appeal was filed by Yogesh Patel against the judgment dated 31.12.2021 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, who had convicted him under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from a written report filed by the victim on June 9, 2019. She stated that the appellant, Yogesh Patel, a resident of her village, had been professing love and promising marriage for two years. The report detailed two specific incidents. The first occurred in February 2018, when the victim was a minor. The appellant, under the pretext of marriage, took her near a river behind his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse. The second incident took place on June 5, 2019, after the appellant informed her that his family would not agree to their marriage and suggested they die together. He again took her to the same location and committed forcible sexual intercourse before refusing to marry her.
Following the second incident, the victim, in distress, consumed insecticide and was hospitalized. Upon being questioned by her parents, she narrated the entire ordeal, leading to the registration of Crime No. 103/19 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The police investigation included medical examinations of the victim and the accused, recording of witness statements, and seizure of documentary evidence, including the victim’s school records to establish her age.
Arguments Presented in Court
The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was contrary to law and evidence. The key contentions were that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age beyond a reasonable doubt, the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, and the victim’s testimony contained material contradictions. The defense also highlighted that the victim and appellant were in a long-standing relationship and that other independent witnesses, including the victim’s parents, did not support the prosecution’s case and were declared hostile.
The State’s counsel countered these arguments, submitting that the victim’s testimony, both in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and before the court, was clear and consistent. The State argued that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant based on the available evidence.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, in its judgment, meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal principles to arrive at its conclusion.
1. Determination of the Victim’s Age: The Court first addressed the crucial question of whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, which lays down the procedure for age determination, the Court found that the documentary evidence was conclusive. The judgment noted, “from the evidence on record, including the school admission register, progress report of Class Vth, and High School mark-sheet, all reflecting the date of birth of the victim as 29.05.2001… it stands proved that on the date of the incident in February 2018, the victim was about 16 years and 9 months old.” The Court concluded that it was “conclusively established that she was a minor, i.e., below 18 years of age, at the time of the occurrence.”
2. Reliability of the Victim’s Testimony: The Court held that the conviction could be based on the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable. The judgment observed that the victim’s statements, both under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-07) and in her court deposition (PW-1), remained “unshaken in cross-examination, thereby confirming her version.” Her testimony was further corroborated by the statements of her father (PW-02), mother (PW-03), and sister (PW-06), which the Court found admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as they reflected her conduct after the incident.
3. Medical and Forensic Evidence: The Court considered the medical (Ex. P-22) and FSL reports (Ex. P-31), which did not find semen or spermatozoa on the victim’s vaginal slides. However, the Court ruled that this did not undermine the prosecution’s case. It reasoned that the defense’s line of cross-examination suggested a consensual relationship, thereby not challenging the act of physical relations itself. The judgment stated, “Thus, it remains undisputed and proved that the accused established physical relations with the victim in the year 2018 when she was a minor, and again in 2019. Since at the time of the first incident the victim was found to be below 18 years of age, her consent or lack of consent has no legal significance.”
4. The ‘Sterling Witness’ Principle: Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court described the victim as a “sterling witness” whose testimony was of high quality, consistent, and unassailable.
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court stated, “Considering the testimony of the victim (PW-1)… has remained consistent and unshaken in material particulars, her version finds corroboration from the statements of her parents (PW-2 and PW-3) and sister (PW-6)… I am of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.”
The Court found no illegality in the trial court’s findings and concluded that the prosecution had “succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant.” The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The appellant, who is currently in jail, has been ordered to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
