Absence of Verified Birth Records and Proof of Consent Vitiate Conviction for Kidnapping and Rape

The prosecution alleged that on June 11, 2022, the minor victim was lured away by Bablu Sonwani.

She was recovered on July 9, 2022, in Raigarh.

The prosecution relied on the school Admission-Discharge Register (Ex. P/3), which recorded her birth date as July 22, 2006, making her a minor at the time of the incident.

Bablu was convicted under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (20 years R.I.), while Tulsi Sharma was convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act (2 years R.I.).

In cross-examination, the Headmaster (PW-2) admitted the date of birth was recorded solely based on oral information from the father without documentary proof.

The victim (PW-1) admitted to traveling through crowded places and staying with the accused’s family without raising an alarm.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the minority of the victim beyond reasonable doubt using reliable documentary evidence.

2. Whether the victim’s conduct and the lack of resistance indicated voluntary companionship rather than kidnapping or forcible sexual assault.

The Court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates a hierarchy of evidence for age determination, prioritizing matriculation or school birth certificates over medical tests.

It relied on Alamelu v. State (2011) and Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. (2022), establishing that school register entries have no probative value unless the person who provided the info is examined or supporting documents are produced.

The Court also applied the principle from S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965), distinguishing between "taking" a minor and a minor voluntarily accompanying an accused person.

The Court found the age determination flawed because PW-2 admitted the school entry was based on "assumption" by parents and lacked foundational reliability.

Following P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023), the Court held that a mere school register entry, unverified by a primary birth certificate, cannot sustain a conviction in POCSO cases.

Regarding the sexual assault charges, the Court noted the victim’s testimony revealed she was a consenting party: she traveled through multiple villages, stayed at the accused’s sister’s house, and met police personnel but never sought help.

The medical report showed no signs of struggle or injury.

Consequently, the Court determined the victim was above 18 years of age and a consenting participant, negating the elements of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO.

The High Court allowed both appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction dated June 10, 2025.

The appellants were acquitted of all charges. Tulsi Sharma’s bail bonds were extended for six months under Section 481 BNSS, and Bablu Sonwani was ordered to be released forthwith from jail upon furnishing a personal bond.