The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, highlighting major lapses in the prosecution’s evidence especially regarding the victim’s age and pointing to a possible property dispute as a motive for false implication.
The case, heard by Hon’ble Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, involved appellant Bhaykaran Sonwani, who was earlier convicted by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) in Balrampur. The trial court had sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, among other charges, for an alleged incident that took place on July 30, 2019.
According to the prosecution, the victim, then said to be a minor, was dragged into a pit, slammed to the ground, and molested by the appellant while she was on her way to a field. She screamed, alerting her father and grandfather, who rushed to the scene, after which the accused fled.
However, the High Court found critical discrepancies in the evidence. Notably, the victim’s age a central issue under the POCSO Act was not established beyond doubt. While school records showed her date of birth as January 12, 2004, making her 15 at the time of the incident, neither the victim nor her family members confirmed this in court. Her father said she was 17, while her grandfather claimed she was 15. The court noted that the school register produced was from a private institution and the original record from her first school or anganwadi was never submitted.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, Justice Chandravanshi observed that mere entries in a school register are not sufficient proof of age unless the source of information is verified. With no birth certificate or original school documents, the prosecution failed to legally establish the victim was a minor.
The court also raised doubts about the assault itself. Medical examination conducted on the same day revealed no visible injuries on the victim such as bruises or abrasions which would be expected given the violent nature of the alleged dragging and slamming. Additionally, the testimonies of the father and grandfather were questioned as the spot map indicated they were about 140 meters away, making it difficult to witness the incident clearly.
Significantly, the judgment noted a property dispute between the families: the appellant’s mother and the victim’s father are siblings, and a revenue case is pending over land. The court suggested this could be a motive for falsely implicating the appellant.
With the prosecution failing to prove both the victim’s minority and the assault beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court acquitted Bhaykaran Sonwani, granting him the benefit of the doubt. He was on bail, and his bail bonds will remain active for six months as per the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 844
Case Details : CRA No. 783 of 2022, Bhaykaran Sonwani vs State of Chhattisgarh. For Appellant : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer
