Inconclusive proof of age and evidence suggesting consensual association entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Balod on 24.01.2017 for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that between August 2015 and May 2016, the appellant induced the victim (born 22.07.1999) to flee to various locations including Bhopal and Umarpoti under the pretext of marriage, where he established physical relations.

The victim’s father filed an FIR on 05.05.16 after the appellant took the victim from her parental home.

The appellant pleaded innocence, asserting that the victim was a consenting adult.

The Court applied Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility and evidentiary value of public records.

entries in school registers have little evidentiary value to prove age in the absence of the material/source upon which the entry was recorded.

in cases of abduction or rape, the standard for determining age from school records must be rigorous to prevent unjust deprivation of the accused's constitutional rights under Article 21.

The Court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the victim's age insufficient. Although the school register (Article B) cited a birth date of 22.07.1999, the witness (PW-4) admitted he had no personal knowledge of the entry's basis, and no contemporaneous birth certificate was produced.

A radiological report (Ex. P-9) estimating age between 16-18 years further created a margin of doubt that favored the accused.

Regarding the merits, the Court observed from the victim’s (PW-2) cross-examination that she was in continuous telephonic contact with the appellant, traveled voluntarily to Bhopal and Umarpoti, and never raised an alarm or complained to her family despite having multiple opportunities.

The testimony of the parents (PW-1 and PW-9) confirmed the victim insisted on staying with the appellant and left home of her own volition with her belongings.

The Court concluded that the conduct of the parties suggested a consensual association rather than forcible abduction or rape.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2017, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant's bail bonds remain effective for six months pursuant to Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 BNSS).