Bilaspur : The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a man convicted of rape nearly 18 years ago, holding that the prosecution failed to prove both the age of the prosecutrix and the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Rajani Dubey, the court set aside the 2008 conviction of Umesh Sinha, who had been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by a Raipur trial court.
The case stemmed from allegations made by a teenage girl, who claimed she had been subjected to repeated sexual abuse over a period of one and a half years. According to the prosecution, the accused had exploited her vulnerability with the alleged tacit support of her family members. The trial court had convicted Sinha primarily on the finding that the girl was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, rendering her consent legally irrelevant.
However, the High Court found that this key conclusion was not supported by reliable evidence.
The prosecution had relied on school records, a marksheet, and municipal birth records to establish the age of the prosecutrix. But the court noted significant gaps in this evidence, including the absence of foundational documents like the admission register and inconsistencies in the birth records. It observed that merely producing such documents without proving their authenticity or the basis of entries was insufficient to conclusively establish age in a criminal trial.
The court emphasized that age determination must meet strict evidentiary standards, especially when it forms the basis for treating consent as immaterial. In this case, it held that the prosecution failed to bring “clinching and legally admissible evidence” to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
Beyond the issue of age, the High Court also found the prosecutrix’s testimony unreliable. It pointed to material contradictions, admissions made during cross-examination, and inconsistencies between her statements and other evidence on record. The court noted that while conviction in rape cases can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be credible and inspire confidence.
Medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s case. The examining doctor found no injuries and opined that the prosecutrix appeared habituated to sexual intercourse, with no clear indication of recent assault. Additionally, the court flagged an unexplained delay of about one and a half years in lodging the FIR, which it said cast serious doubt on the allegations.
Taking all factors together, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated the settled principle of criminal law that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.
“The combined effect of failure to prove minority, unreliable testimony, lack of medical corroboration, and defence evidence creates reasonable doubt,” the court observed while acquitting the accused.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The accused, who was already on bail, was directed to furnish a bond to appear before the Supreme Court if required.
Case Title : Umesh Sinha vs State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 994 of 2008)