Doubts Over Victim's Age Evidence Lead to Acquittal in 23-Year-Old Kidnapping & Rape Case: Gujarat High Court - 2025-09-21

Gujarat High Court Acquits Man in 23-Year-Old Kidnapping and Rape Case, Cites Insufficient Proof of Victim's Minority

Ahmedabad, India - The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, has acquitted a man convicted of kidnapping and raping a minor girl in 1998, setting aside a 2002 trial court judgment. Justice Gita Gopi allowed the criminal appeal filed by Khanjan Narjibhai Palas, holding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, a critical element for the charges to stand.

The court emphasized that in the absence of primary evidence like a birth certificate or records from the first school attended, the benefit of doubt arising from the wide margin of error in radiological age determination must be granted to the accused.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to September 1998, when the victim's father filed a complaint alleging that Khanjan Palas had kidnapped his 14-year-old daughter. The prosecution's case was that Palas lured the girl, took her to various locations, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. It was alleged that the girl left her home with the appellant on multiple occasions.

In 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge in Ahmedabad convicted Palas under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage), and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with the maximum being three years for the charge of rape. Palas subsequently filed an appeal in the High Court challenging this conviction.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in determining the victim's age. The key contentions were:

- Doubtful Age Proof: The prosecution relied on a certificate from a school the victim had joined only a few months before the incident, not the school she first attended. No primary evidence, such as a municipal birth certificate from her birthplace (Delhi), was produced.

- Medical Evidence: A radiologist’s report estimated the victim's age to be between 14 and 16.5 years. The defence argued that accounting for the legally accepted margin of error of two years on either side, her age could be considered up to 18.5 years. The benefit of this doubt, they contended, should go to the accused.

- Inconsistent Testimony: The victim did not allege sexual intercourse in her initial statements to the police in September 1998. The allegation of rape was made for the first time in her court deposition nearly 32 months after the incident.

- Voluntary Act: Evidence suggested a consensual relationship, with the victim leaving her home on her own volition on three separate occasions.

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, maintained that the victim was a minor, making her consent immaterial. They argued that the school records, corroborated by parental testimony, were sufficient to prove her age and that the appellant had enticed her away from her lawful guardians.

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

Justice Gita Gopi conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, focusing on the critical issue of the victim's age. The court's decision was anchored in the principles laid down for age determination, particularly referencing Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, as a guiding standard.

The judgment highlighted several key deficiencies in the prosecution's case:

"The condition laid down in Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act for proving an entry pertaining to the age of a student in a School Admission Register is to be considered... Here the witness-Head Clerk did bring the Register of admission in Court but failed to produce certified copy of the relevant entry. Further, in absence of record from Little Flower High School, the documents of The New Samarth English High School becomes doubtful..."

The court noted that the prosecution failed to follow the established hierarchy of proof for age determination:

1. Matriculation certificate (not available).

2. Date of birth certificate from the school first attended (not produced).

3. Birth certificate from a municipal authority (not produced).

Only in the absence of these documents can medical opinion be relied upon. In this case, the court found the medical evidence to be inconclusive.

"In the instant case, as per the radiologist’s opinion... her age was between 14 (fourteen) to 16½ (sixteen and half) years. In accordance to the judgment referred herein above, margin of error in age ascertained by the Radiologist is two years on either side. Thus, the age recorded by the Radiologist of 14-16½ years could be considered as 12-18½ years. The age on the upper side would come to 18½ years."

The court concluded that if the benefit of doubt is given, the victim's age could be considered above 18, which would negate the charges of statutory rape and kidnapping of a minor.

The court also took note of the victim's conduct, stating, "Here the conduct of the prosecutrix becomes important to be examined, her eloping frequently with the accused, speaks volumes of her relation with the accused. The criminal intent of the accused has not been proved."

Final Verdict

Finding the prosecution's case to be resting on shaky and unproven grounds, the High Court allowed the appeal.

"Thus, accordingly prosecutrix’s age at the time of complaint... can be considered above 18 years, thus failing prosecution, to draw the ingredients of Sections 361 and 375 of IPC against the accused to prove the case under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC."

The court set aside the 2002 judgment and acquitted Khanjan Narjibhai Palas of all charges, bringing a 23-year-long legal battle to a close.