The Delhi High Court set aside a rape conviction after finding contradictions in the prosecutrix’s age records, ruling that evidence regarding age cannot be relied upon when school entries lack parental verification or supporting proof.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of a man in a 2005 rape case after finding that the prosecution failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that where contradictions exist in age records and where a school register entry is not based on parental statements, such evidence cannot be treated as reliable.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the prosecutrix’s age when the statutory age of consent is in question.
Background of the Case
An FIR was lodged in 2005 after the prosecutrix left her parental home and was later found living with the appellant. During the investigation and trial, the prosecutrix stated that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant and lived with him as his wife.
While the trial court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping and abduction charges, it convicted him of rape on the ground that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, rendering her consent legally invalid under the law as it stood at the time.
The conviction was primarily based on a school certificate that recorded the prosecutrix’s date of birth. However, alternative documents, including medical records, statements before the magistrate, and her own testimony, presented conflicting ages, several of which placed her above 16 years.
Arguments Before the Court
Appellant:
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Passey, appearing for the appellant, argued that the school certificate was unreliable since the school witness admitted that the date of birth was not entered based on any parental declaration or verified documents. Furthermore, the original admission register was never produced in court.
State:
On behalf of the State, APP Naresh Kumar Chahar contended that the certificate was sufficient to determine the prosecutrix’s minority. However, the defense countered that the prosecution had failed to corroborate this with medical or parental evidence.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sharma observed that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies regarding the prosecutrix’s age. The Bench noted that:
- The prosecutrix herself stated her birth year as 1988 during her testimony.
- Medical documents mentioned her age as 14 years.
- The magistrate recorded her age as 16 years.
- The school certificate reflected yet another different age.
In light of these contradictions and the absence of an ossification test, the Court held that the prosecution’s evidence on age could not be relied upon. The Bench also pointed out that the school witness admitted that dates of birth are often recorded based on approximation and no parental verification was conducted in this case.
The Court further noted that the Investigating Officer failed to verify the prosecutrix’s age from her parents and did not even examine her father, despite his presence during the medical examination.
The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, reiterating that where contradictions exist regarding the age of the prosecutrix, and where school register entries are unsupported by parental statements, the evidence cannot be deemed reliable, particularly in the absence of medical age determination.
At the time of the alleged offence, the age of consent under Indian law was 16 years. Since the prosecution could not conclusively prove that the prosecutrix was below that age, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and acquitted the appellant.
Appearances:
Appellant: Rajesh Kumar Passey, Advocate
Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, with Avocates Puja Mann, Vipin Kumar Yadav
Case Title:
Udai Pal v. State
CRL.A. 155/2007