Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Birka Shiva – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3007 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1445 of 2025)
Decided On : 16-07-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The prosecution’s primary evidence for establishing the victim’s age relied on an official birth certificate (Ex.P11), indicating her date of birth as 3rd November 1996, which would make her approximately 15 years and 9 months old at the time of the incident (!) (!) .
The evidentiary value of the birth certificate is limited without corroboration from witnesses who can verify its authenticity or the basis of the recorded date of birth. The court notes that such official entries are admissible but have limited probative value unless supported by reliable testimony or material evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The court finds that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence was not corroborated and the source of the date of birth entry was not established satisfactorily (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant on the date of the alleged kidnapping and resided with him for nearly two months, which undermines the claim that she was forcibly taken from her guardianship (!) (!) (!) .
There is no credible evidence to establish that the appellant forcibly enticed or detained the victim against her will, or that she was confined in a locked room against her volition. The victim’s own deposition suggests she had free access and was not restrained forcibly (!) (!) (!) .
The court observes that the victim’s statements during trial are consistent with her prior statements and do not demonstrate coercion or force. Her conduct, including staying with the appellant during his hospitalization, suggests her presence was voluntary (!) (!) .
The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of lack of consent for the sexual acts, as the victim’s testimony did not imply any resistance or coercion, and the medical evidence did not support allegations of recent forced sexual intercourse (!) (!) .
Based on the totality of the evidence, the court concludes that the essential ingredients for the charges of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and rape are not satisfied. The victim’s voluntary participation and the absence of evidence of force or coercion lead to the acquittal of the appellant on all charges (!) (!) .
Consequently, the conviction under Sections 376, 363, and 342 of the IPC is set aside, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The appeals are allowed, and the earlier judgments confirming conviction are reversed (!) .
The court emphasizes that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the victim’s age and non-consent, which it finds was not met in this case (!) (!) .
If you require further elaboration or specific legal principles, please let me know.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual circumstances leading to the conviction (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's interpretation of consent and age of victim (Para 6 , 18) |
| 3. failure of the prosecution to prove charges (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 26th June 2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2018, which confirmed the judgment and order dated 29th January 2018 passed by the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities Against Women at Karimnagar,1[Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court.'] in Sessions Case No.284 of 2014, whereby the Appellant-convict, Birka Shiva2[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’], was convicted under Sections 376 , 363, and 342 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18603[Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]. However, while upholding the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the High Court vide the impugned judgment, and order reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant and modified the sentence in the following manner:
| Section | Trial Court | High Court |
| 363 IPC | 5 Years | 1 Year |
| 376 IPC | 7 Years of R.I. | 2 Years of R.I. |
| 342 IPC | 6 Months of R.I. | 6 Months of R.I |
3. The prosecution case as emerging from the record, as also set out by the Courts below, is as follows:
3.1. The appellant, a friend of PW-4 (victim's brother), was a regular visitor to the house of PW-1 ( victim's mother). During such visits, he came in contact with the victim (PW- 3), who was pursuing 1st year of her graduation.
3.2. On the morning of 4th August 2012, the appellant took the victim to Peddapalli, and from there to Hyderabad, where he tied a ‘pasupukommu’ (turmeric thread) around her neck, thereby creating an impression that they were married. The appellant then confined the victim in a room at Shadnagar, Hyderabad, and they started residing together as a couple, subjecting her to sexual intercourse, away from the parental home of the victim.
3.3. On 8th August 2012, when the victim was untraceable, her mother (PW-1) lodged a missing complaint. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered as FIR No.85 of 2012 at PS Godavarikhani – II Town, District Karimnagar, under Section 366(A) of the IPC. PW-1 alleged that the appellant had lured and induced the victim and taken her away to some unknown place by taking the opportunity of her innocence.
3.4. On 12th October 2012, when the appellant sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident, he was admitted to the hospital at Karimnagar. At that time, the victim came to her mother (PW-1) and narrated the ordeal to her family.
3.5. Upon her return, the victim's statement was recorded, and based on her statement, Sections 342 , 376, and 366 of the IPC were added. The victim was also examined by a doctor (PW-8), who took vaginal swabs and sent them to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Karimnagar. After the surrender of the appellant, a potency test was conducted by a doctor (PW-9), who issued a certificate stating that the appellant was potent to commit a sexual act.
3.6. After completing the investigation, chargesheet dated 30th January 2013 came to be submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manthani, who committed the case to the Sessions Division at Karimnagar. The case was initially taken on file by the Sessions Court as S.C. No.284 of 2014 and then assigned to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani. Charges under Sections 366(A), 342, and 376 of IPC were framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was subsequently transferred to the Special Court.
3.7. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1, being a contradiction in the statement of victim (PW-3) recorded under Section 161 of
Prosecution must prove age and lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt for charges of rape and kidnapping; prior voluntary cohabitation casts doubt on claims of forced sexual intercourse.
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence of consent negating charges of kidnapping and rape.
The Court ruled that evidence of school records is primary for establishing age in sexual offense cases, and a minor's consent is irrelevant. Conviction under Section 366A was modified to Section 363....
The prosecution must prove the age of the victim and consent in cases involving charges under the POCSO Act. Failure to establish these crucial elements can lead to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
