A school-register entry does not establish a victim’s age without proof of its source.

The complainant alleged that the respondent-accused had abducted his daughter and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

The prosecution asserted that she was 17 years and 9 months old at the time.

The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, finding the prosecution had not proved her age or the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The complainant appealed against the acquittal under Section 413 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, so as to attract the POCSO Act

2. Whether the evidence established that the accused abducted the victim and committed rape or penetrative sexual assault against her will

3. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference

The Court considered the charged offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and the appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the BNSS.

Relying on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 863, it stated that a school or birth-register entry may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but its probative value depends on proof of authenticity and the source of the underlying information; merely marking a document as an exhibit does not prove its contents.

The Court also applied the principle that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed where the trial court’s view is a reasonable and possible one; it cited Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67.

The school-register extract and birth certificate were not supported by evidence establishing the source of the date-of-birth entry; the school witness could not identify the supporting admission document, and the victim’s mother gave a different place of birth from that recorded in the school documents.

The Court therefore upheld the trial court’s finding that minority had not been proved.

It further noted that the victim said she willingly left with the accused, stayed with him for over a month, had a phone but did not contact her family, and had stated in her Magistrate’s statement and medical history that the accused had not acted against her will.

In light of the unproved age and this evidence, the Court accepted the trial court’s view that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecution had not established abduction or non-consensual sexual assault.

Finding the acquittal to be a reasonable view rather than a perverse one, it declined to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s judgment and order dated 25 March 2026 were confirmed.