A photocopied birth certificate, without proof of its source, cannot establish a victim’s age.

The complainant, the victim’s mother, alleged that her approximately 16-year-old daughter was taken from Patan on 1 March 2022 by Sanjay Thakore, the victim’s brother-in-law, with the assistance of co-accused Piyush Chauhan.

The victim and Sanjay travelled to several places and lived together for about a month.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(A), 4, 5(L), 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act, finding that the victim’s minority and the alleged offences had not been proved.

The complainant appealed against the acquittal under Section 413 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 372 of the CrPC.

Whether the prosecution proved by cogent and admissible evidence that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident.

Whether the trial court’s findings that kidnapping and the alleged sexual offences were not proved were perverse, warranting appellate interference with the acquittal.

Under Section 413 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 372 of the CrPC, an appeal may be brought against an acquittal; however, an appellate court should interfere only in exceptional cases where compelling circumstances establish perversity or other sufficient grounds, bearing in mind that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and that a reasonably possible view should not be displaced.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act permits relevant entries in public or official records to be admitted, but admissibility does not itself establish probative value: the authenticity and source of the underlying information must be proved, and merely exhibiting a document does not prove its contents.

The Court relied on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 863, and the authorities discussed therein, including Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram, on proof of documentary entries and their evidentiary weight.

The prosecution relied on a photocopy of the victim’s birth certificate, but did not examine municipal officials or otherwise prove the source or registration of the date-of-birth entry.

It also produced no school records, and the investigating officer had not investigated the victim’s schooling or recorded statements from school authorities.

The Court therefore agreed that the victim’s minority had not been established by cogent and admissible evidence.

On the remaining charges, the Court reappraised the victim’s evidence and found no basis to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that she had remained with the accused voluntarily for about a month; with her minority unproved, the prosecution had not established kidnapping or the alleged sexual offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial court’s view was not perverse, and the restrictive standard for interfering with an acquittal was not met.

It declined to grant leave to appeal, and the appeal stood dismissed at the admission stage.