School Records Final for POCSO Victim Age Determination: Chhattisgarh HC

In a stern reaffirmation of statutory child protection measures, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has affirmed that school admission register entries constitute primary, conclusive proof of a victim's age under child abuse laws, ruling that minor consent carries zero legal validity. Dismissing an appeal against life imprisonment by a father convicted of incestuous sexual assault, the Court underscored that the statutory presumption of guilt under child protection law shifts a heavy burden onto the accused once core facts are established.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal heard the criminal appeal challenging a conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Evidentiary Validity and Statutory Presumptions

The Court evaluated the statutory definition of a child under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and reiterated that school records maintained in the regular course of official business serve as reliable evidence for determining minority. Relying on Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana ( "(2013) 7 SCC 263": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 336), the Bench observed that statutory rules governing age determination apply equally to minor victims as they do to juveniles in conflict with law.

Addressing the statutory framework, the Bench referred to State of Rajasthan v. Asharam Bapu ( "(2023) 8 SCC 1": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 79) to highlight that Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 creates a reverse burden of proof once the prosecution establishes the victim's minority and the occurrence of sexual assault. The Court also cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal ( "(2015) 7 SCC 681": 2015 CaseBase(SC) 395) to emphasize that minor consent holds no legal validity under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

On evaluating victim testimony, the Court relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi ( "(2012) 8 SCC 21": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 82) to hold that a victim's unassailable version requires no external corroboration. It further noted State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari ( "(2004) 8 SCC 153": 2004 CaseBase(SC) 33), Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat ( "(1983) 3 SCC 217": 1983 CaseBase(SC) 26), Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka ( "(2013) 5 SCC 705": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 310), and State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha regarding the evaluation of medical evidence, child witnesses, and the mandatory nature of statutory minimum sentences. Furthermore, referencing Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others ( "(2018) 17 SCC 291": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 115) and Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, the Bench emphasized the constitutional and statutory mandate to protect children from sexual abuse without showing undue leniency.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable."

The Court issued the following directions:
"Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any."

Background

The dispute arose from an FIR lodged on August 2, 2019, alleging that the appellant repeatedly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault against his minor daughter. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sentencing him to concurrent life imprisonments. The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing false implication and inconsistencies in witness statements.

The High Court found that the school records proved the victim's date of birth as August 18, 2007, establishing her minor status. Rejecting the defence's arguments, the High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, upheld the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA No. 1775 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:34456-DB
Case Title: Milan Bharti v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 7417