Failure to prove the victim was below sixteen, coupled with unreliable testimony, warranted acquittal.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 31.12.2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, acquitting Des Raj of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that, in June–July 1999, the respondent, then a Junior Engineer residing at Chamba, raped the victim in his house while she was assisting his family, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child in February 2000.

The FIR was registered on 24.02.2000, approximately 8–10 months after the alleged incident.

The respondent had initially been acquitted on 16.12.2004. In an earlier appeal, the High Court remanded the matter and permitted the State to lead additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prove the victim’s date of birth.

The prosecution thereafter examined a witness from the Chief Medical Officer’s office and produced birth-register material asserting that the victim was born on 02.07.1983.

The Trial Court again acquitted the respondent, leading to the present appeal.

The prosecution also relied on the victim’s testimony, the evidence of her parents, the recovery of the child’s body, and the post-mortem report.

The post-mortem report recorded that the child was a fully developed female child, approximately 9–10 months old, and had died from asphyxia due to suffocation.

Whether the prosecution proved, by reliable and admissible evidence, that the victim was below 16 years of age—the applicable age of discretion under Section 375 IPC at the relevant time—when the alleged incident occurred?

Whether the testimony of the victim and the surrounding circumstances established that the respondent had sexual intercourse with her against her will or without her consent, thereby committing rape under Section 376 IPC?

Whether the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, had sufficient grounds to interfere with the Trial Court’s acquittal?

The Court applied Section 376 IPC to determine the respondent’s criminal liability for rape and Section 375 IPC as it stood in 1999, when the statutory age of discretion was 16 years.

Where the victim is not proved to be below the statutory age, the prosecution must establish absence of consent or intercourse against her will; the victim’s testimony may form the basis of conviction if it is reliable and inspires confidence, but an untrustworthy or materially contradicted version cannot sustain a conviction.

The Court also applied the principle that radiological age estimation carries a possible margin of error of approximately one to two years on either side.

In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is strengthened by the acquittal, and interference is justified only where the evidence discloses cogent grounds warranting reversal.

The procedural history additionally involved Section 391 Cr.P.C., concerning reception of additional evidence in an appellate proceeding, and Section 437-A Cr.P.C. concerning post-judgment bail bonds.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s age through cogent and reliable evidence.

Although the birth-register extract and school certificate referred to 02.07.1983, the additional witness could not connect the unnamed female entry in the register with the victim.

The register lacked material particulars, including a serial number, proper signatures, and authentication by the competent Registrar, and the witness could not identify the author or date of the entry.

The radiological evidence was itself inconclusive, estimating the victim’s age within ranges subject to a margin of error.

The victim’s testimony was also found unreliable.

Her account that the respondent’s wife had recently delivered a child was inconsistent with the defence birth certificate showing that the respondent’s wife delivered a child on 17.07.2000.

The post-mortem report contradicted the victim’s assertion that the child had been born dead, recording death by suffocation after birth.

The Court further considered it implausible that a nine-month pregnancy remained undiscovered despite the victim living with her parents, and noted her failure to disclose the alleged rape during her hospitalisation or immediately after delivery.

The unexplained identification of the burial place by the victim’s brother, who was not examined, also created doubt regarding the prosecution narrative.

Since the prosecution could not prove that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, her consent became legally material.

However, the Court found that neither the alleged absence of consent nor intercourse against her will was established through dependable evidence.

The uncertainty regarding the exact date of the incident was particularly significant because, even if the asserted date of birth was accepted, the alleged occurrence could have taken place shortly before or after the victim attained 16 years.

In these circumstances, the strengthened presumption of innocence arising from the acquittal required dismissal of the State’s appeal.

The victim’s testimony and the supporting evidence were not sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC.

Finding no cogent basis to interfere with the acquittal, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the respondent’s acquittal.

The State was directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in the sum of ₹25,000 with one surety for six months, and the pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.