A school-register entry unsupported by source records cannot establish a victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that the victim went missing on 30 May 2019 and was found with the appellant at Jairam Nagar Railway Station that day.

The trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act but convicted him under the IPC provisions.

In appeal, the appellant disputed proof of the victim’s age and contended that she had voluntarily accompanied him.

The prosecution relied on a school-register entry recording her date of birth as 10 April 2002; the Head Master testified that the entry was based on information from her father, but no supporting document was produced and the father was not examined.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under 18 years of age on the date of the incident, so as to establish kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC.

Whether the evidence established that the appellant kidnapped or induced the victim to compel her marriage, thereby proving the charge under Section 366 IPC.

Sections 363 and 366 IPC govern kidnapping from lawful guardianship and kidnapping or abduction with the requisite intent to compel marriage, respectively.

Under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, an official school record may be admissible, but its evidentiary value in proving age depends on the material supporting the recorded entry; a school entry without a reliable basis may be insufficient.

Age determination must be based on credible evidence, with the applicable hierarchy of age-related documents and medical evidence considered where relevant.

Under S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, a minor’s voluntary departure with an accused does not, without evidence of inducement, persuasion, or active participation in forming the intention to leave, necessarily amount to “taking” her from lawful guardianship.

The Court found the school-register entry inadequate to establish minority: the Head Master had no underlying document for the recorded date of birth, the father who allegedly supplied it was not examined, and the prosecution produced neither a birth certificate nor an ossification report.

The Court therefore held that the victim’s minority had not been proved.

Her testimony showed that she knew the appellant, communicated with him, accompanied him on his motorcycle without raising an alarm, and later went with him to the railway station; it did not establish force or inducement to leave her home or to compel marriage.

Applying Varadarajan, the Court concluded that the evidence did not prove the requisite “taking” for Section 363 or the necessary conduct and intent for Section 366.

It set aside the conviction and sentences and acquitted the appellant of those charges.

As the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds were directed to continue for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.