Failure to Prove Age via Primary Evidence Leads to Acquittal in Rape CasDelhiHighCourt

The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, set aside the conviction of a man under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), citing the prosecution’s failure to establish the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt. The case highlights the critical necessity of adhering to strict standards of evidence when determining the age of a victim in criminal proceedings.

Case Background: An Elopement and Disputed Age

The case arose from a 2005 incident where a young girl left her home in Delhi to live with the appellant, Udai Pal. While the prosecution alleged kidnapping and rape, the trial court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping, finding that the girl had left her residence voluntarily. However, the trial court convicted the appellant for rape based on the assertion that the prosecutrix was 11 years and 7 months old at the time of the alleged offense, placing her below the then-applicable age of consent of 16. The appellant challenged this conviction, arguing that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult at the time and that her age had been misrepresented in legal documents.

Arguments Presented

The prosecution heavily relied upon school records, represented by a certificate (Ex. PW-2/C) issued by the Headmistress, indicating the date of birth as April 15, 1994. The prosecution argued that as per this record, the victim was legally underage, making any sexual contact, regardless of consent, a criminal act of rape.

Conversely, the defense argued that the documentary evidence was unreliable. They contended that PW-2 Mahipal, the girl’s guardian by marriage, had arbitrarily provided the date of birth without any birth certificate or supporting documentation. The defense highlighted that the prosecutrix herself testified that her age was recorded incorrectly in school files due to her guardian’s pressure and that she was indeed 18 years old at the time of the incident. They further pointed to the absence of a bone ossification test—a scientific method that could have definitively helped settle the conflicting age claims.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s analysis underscored that the burden of proving the victim’s age rested squarely on the prosecution. The Court found several major flaws in the prosecution's reliance on the school certificate:

1. Lack of Primary Evidence : Neither the original school admission register nor the affidavit used to procure the date of birth was produced in court.

2. Inconsistent Records : The medical records (MLC) listed her age as 14, contradicting school records, which further convoluted the facts.

3. Questionable Methodology : The High Court noted that the school register entries were based on self-declarations by a guardian with no personal knowledge of the birth event.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s stance in * Manak Chand v. State of Haryana *, the High Court emphasized that school records cannot be accepted as conclusive proof if they are inconsistent and lack supporting corroborated evidence, especially when no bone ossification test has been conducted to resolve medical discrepancies.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the standard of proof required in such sensitive determinations:

• "Such a certificate by itself does not meet the standard of proof required for admissibility under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as it cannot be treated as a public record or as a certified extract from an official school admission register."
• "In case of Manak Chand v. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court in similar circumstances, had observed that a bone ossification test ought to have been conducted in order to reach some reliable conclusion as to the age of the prosecutrix."
• "Considering that the incident took place in 2005... and in light of the absence of conclusive evidence to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16 years at that time... this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt."

Final Decision

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence. By emphasizing that an individual's liberty cannot be compromised in the absence of clinching scientific or primary documentary proof, the High Court’s ruling sets a significant precedent for the handling of age-related disputes in criminal trial proceedings. The appellant, having been granted the benefit of the doubt, was acquitted of all charges. The practical effect of this decision reaffirms that in the absence of valid age verification, the prosecution’s case regarding the age of consent is inherently vulnerable to dismissal.