With no conclusive proof that the girl was a minor and no medical evidence of force, the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a rape conviction that stood for 21 years.
How many lives are pushed into prison before basic proof is properly examined?
BILASPUR: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur acquitted an appellant in a criminal appeal arising from a 2003 case, setting aside the 2005 conviction passed by the Special Judge, Ambikapur, under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case began with a missing report lodged by the girl’s father on 25.05.2003, alleging that the accused had taken the minor girl to another village and committed rape. An FIR was registered under IPC provisions along with the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the trial court later convicted the accused.
In appeal, the defence argued that the girl was consenting and that her age was not properly proved. Medical evidence showed her age to be about 17 years. The radiology report clearly stated that no definite opinion on age could be given, and the doctor admitted that there can be a margin of two years on either side.
During cross-examination, the girl admitted that she stayed with the accused in Ambikapur for about three weeks. She lived in a rented house with him, cooked food, and did not inform the landlord or anyone else about any force. She also admitted that they were living as husband and wife and that she did not attempt to escape.
The medical report recorded that no external or internal injury was found, and no evidence of forceful sexual intercourse was seen. The FSL report also did not find human sperm on the clothes sent for examination.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed that no school record or reliable document was produced to conclusively prove the girl’s age. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rajak Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court noted that radiological age determination is not exact and margin must be considered.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observation:
“While it is correct that the age determined on the basis of a radiological examination may not an accurate determination and sufficient margin either way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts stated above read with the report of the radiological examination leaves room for ample doubt with regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix. The benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally, must go in favour of the accused.”
The Court further noted:
“We will, therefore, have to hold that in the present case the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence. If that is so, based on the evidence on record, already referred to, we will further have to hold that the possibility of the prosecutrix being a consenting party cannot be altogether ruled out.”
Based on the evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a minor and that the possibility of consent could not be ruled out. The conviction and sentence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. Since he was already on bail, his bail bonds were discharged, and he was entitled to a refund of the fine amount.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 363 IPC | Punishes kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship | Invoked in FIR alleging the girl was taken away from her home |
| Section 366 IPC | Punishes kidnapping or abduction of a woman for marriage or sexual relations | Trial court convicted under this section; High Court later set aside conviction |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishes rape or non-consensual sexual intercourse | Main conviction provision overturned due to doubt on age and consent |
| Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act, 1989 | Protects SC/ST women from sexual exploitation and atrocities | Added because victim belonged to Scheduled Tribe community |
| Section 374(4) CrPC | Provides right to appeal against conviction by Sessions Court | Used by appellant to challenge conviction before High Court |
| Section 313 CrPC | Enables court to record statement of accused explaining evidence | Accused denied allegations and claimed false implication during examination |
Case Details
- Case Title: Ramadhar Baghel vs State of Chhattisgarh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal (CRA) No. 400 of 2005
- Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:8243
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved on: 28.01.2026
- Judgment Delivered on: 16.02.2026
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
- For Respondent/State: Mr. Suresh Tandon, Panel Lawyer
Key Takeaways
- Allegations are not proof. Courts must insist on strict evidence, especially in serious charges like rape.
- Age must be conclusively established. Radiology alone, with margin of error, cannot be used to automatically criminalize a man’s life.
- Conduct and surrounding circumstances matter. Consent cannot be ignored merely because an accusation is made later.
- Medical evidence is critical. Absence of injuries and forensic support weakens prosecution claims of force.
- Benefit of doubt is not a technicality. It is a fundamental protection against wrongful conviction, and this judgment reinforces that principle.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.