Consent is Immaterial in Rape Prosecution Where Legal Minority of Victim is Established via Birth Certificate

The appellant was convicted by the trial court for kidnapping and repeatedly raping a girl (PW1) on 20.01.2014

The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured PW1, aged approximately 15 years and 6 months, to Rampur, U.P., where he committed penetrative sexual assault

The appellant contended that PW1 was a major who accompanied him voluntarily and that sexual relations were consensual

The trial court sentenced the appellant to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, and 10 years under Section 376(2)(n) IPC

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident

2. Whether the evidence supported a conviction for kidnapping and abduction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC

3. Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC can be sustained based on the victim’s testimony and the appellant's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which prioritizes a birth certificate from a municipal authority over medical estimates for age determination

It also examined Section 361 IPC (Kidnapping from lawful guardianship) and Section 366 IPC (Kidnapping for illicit intercourse), noting that "enticing" or "taking" is essential for these offenses

the court applied Section 375 IPC, emphasizing that if a victim is below the age of consent (18 years), any sexual intercourse is rape, regardless of purported consent

The court also relied on Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam, noting that an accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be read alongside other evidence to corroborate the occurrence of an act

Regarding age, the court rejected the defense's reliance on the onset of menarche as an age-determination factor, holding that the birth certificate (Ext. PW5/A) proving PW1 was 15 years and 6 months old was conclusive under the JJ Act

On the charges of kidnapping (Sec 363/366 IPC), the court found PW1's testimony contradictory; she admitted to joining the appellant voluntarily after being beaten by her brother and stated there was no threat or coercion during her travel to Rampur. This negated the elements of "taking" or "enticing" by the accused.

regarding rape (Sec 376(2)(n) IPC), even though the court found the sexual act was likely consensual—contradicting the victim's claim of "force"—the appellant’s own admission of intercourse in his Sec 313 statement, coupled with the victim’s evidence, established the physical act. Since minority was established, the victim’s consent was legally irrelevant, fulfilling the requirements for statutory rape

the court upheld the conviction and the 10-year sentence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, holding that the victim's minority rendered her consent immaterial. All pending applications were closed