CASE NAME: Moneshwar Alias Rinku Katlam v/s State of Chhattisgarh
CASE NUMBER: CRA No. 981 of 2024
COURT: High Court of Chhattisgarh
DATE: 4 February 2026
QUORUM: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agarwal
FACTS
The father of the victim (complainant) lodged a written complaint at Police Station Boratalab stating that on 27 April 2022 at about 03.00 pm, his minor daughter, aged about 15 years, left the house without informing any family member and thereafter went missing. Initially, the family members presumed that she might have gone somewhere nearby; however, when she did not return even after 1–2 hours, they made a search in the vicinity and the village, but the search went in vain. The complainant suspected that some unknown person had enticed and taken away his daughter, and based on this, Crime No. 31/2022 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC against an unknown person. It came to light during the investigation that Moneshwar, also known as Rinku, had taken the victim to Hyderabad. Subsequently, both the victim and the accused were recovered from Hyderabad. Based on the statement of the victim, offences under Sections 366 and 376(2) (d) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act were additionally registered, leading to the arrest of the accused. Further charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and, in the alternative, under Section 376(3) of the IPC. The matter was brought before the Trial Court, which, upon examination, convicted the accused under the IPC, 1860 and the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to a fine and rigorous imprisonment of 20 years on 20 December 2023. The accused filed an appeal before the High Court for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
ISSUES
- Whether the prosecutrix was a minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident or not.
- Whether the appellant has committed rape upon the prosecutrix or not.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
- Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
The counsel on behalf of the Appellant contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad both in law and on the facts and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It was stated that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and erred in placing reliance upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are admittedly interested witnesses, being close family members of the victim, and whose statements suffer from material contradictions and inconsistencies. It was further submitted that the age determination of the victim has not been conducted in accordance with settled legal principles. The documentary evidence and medical opinion are inconclusive, perverse and unsustainable in law. It was further contended that the victim and the appellant were admittedly in a consensual love relationship and were living together as husband and wife after solemnising marriage. They submitted that the prosecution’s evidence does not inspire confidence and is insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant, beyond a reasonable doubt.
RESPONDENT:
The counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed after due appreciation of the evidence and does not suffer from illegality. It was contended that the prosecution had successfully proved the age of the victim through cogent and reliable evidence and that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. They submitted that the testimony of the victim is trustworthy, and the same is corroborated by other witnesses and evidence. Further, they stated that the mere relationship of witnesses with the victim does not render their evidence unreliable, and consent is immaterial in cases involving a minor and the alleged love affair or marriage, even if accepted, does not dilute the statutory offence under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Court observed with regard to the first issue that all the documents and oral testimonies such as the First Information Report, missing person report, statements of the father of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix herself, her mother and uncle, birth certificate, school admission records, Dakhil-Kharij Register and the testimony of the school teacher and the Investigating Officer consistently record the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 27 June 2006. The Hon’ble Court observed the case of Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1454] wherein it was stated that an entry regarding date of birth in the scholar’s register is made on the information given by parents or someone having special knowledge of the fact has the same probative value. The court observed the existence of a minor variation in the name of the prosecutrix in one of the Kotwari entries and stated that it does not create any doubt regarding her age, particularly when the date of birth remains identical in all records. It is well recognised that at the time of initial registration, a child’s name may be entered as a calling name and finalised later at the time of school admission. Hence, the court stated that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was a minor and below 18 years of age.
With regard to the second issue, the Hon’ble Court observed that the present case is far from being established as forcible abduction or sexual assault, as it is evident that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant was one of mutual affection and voluntary companionship. The prosecutrix had unequivocally stated that the appellant was her neighbour, had frequent interaction, and gradually developed a love affair. She further admitted that her parents became aware of their relationship and had admonished both of them. The statement demolishes the very theory of kidnapping by deceit or coercion. The court observed that the evidence that prior to leaving the village, the appellant allegedly took the prosecutrix to Rajmata Rajeshwar Temple and applied vermilion in her hair, which she claims to be an act of marriage. She admitted that she consciously chose not to disclose this alleged marriage to her parents or any other family member. The court observed that such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the version of a helpless minor being forcibly taken away from her lawful guardianship. Rather, it reflects deliberate concealment and voluntary conduct on her part. As per the prosecutrix’s version, it was observed that at no stage has she alleged that force, threat, inducement or deceit was used while undertaking this journey, hence negating the essential ingredients of Section 363 IPC. The prosecutrix admitted that she lived with the appellant peacefully and happily for about one and a half months. This prolonged period of cohabitation, devoid of complaint or resistance, decisively rules out the offence of abduction with intent contemplated under Section 366 IPC. The court observed that the sexual intercourse allegation suffers from inconsistencies, as the tests recorded no injuries that suggest forcible sexual intercourse. The conduct of the prosecutrix, her admissions in cross-examination, delay, inconsistencies and lack of corroborative medical evidence were observed and generated doubt, holding that the accused cannot be convicted on moral presumptions.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, as also Section 6 of the POCSO Act, beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence on record points towards a consensual relationship and voluntary cohabitation. Considering the same, the appellant is entitled for acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2023 was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant would thereby be released from jail.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the present case highlights a crucial legal principle which states that even in matters involving minors, conviction must rest on clear, cogent, and reliable evidence and not on moral assumptions or statutory presumptions alone. It expresses the distinction between statutory protection of minors and the evidentiary value, especially in criminal trials.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI
Click here to read the judgment.
