Madras HC Acquits Two Men In Consensual Relationship Case, Finding School Certificate Without Underlying Records Couldn’t Prove Girl Was Under 18

The prosecution alleged that the first accused, then about 21, kidnapped the victim, who was said to be 17, and had sexual relations with her; the second accused allegedly assisted.

The trial court convicted both appellants of offences under the IPC, the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and imposed concurrent sentences.

On appeal, the High Court found that the victim’s earlier accounts described her relationship and departure with the first accused as voluntary, while her allegation of force emerged in her deposition.

The prosecution relied on a school bonafide certificate to establish her date of birth, but did not produce the underlying school records or other relevant age documents.

The court treated the victim’s minority as a foundational fact for applying the POCSO Act and held that it had to be proved by the prosecution.

Applying Yuvaprakash v. State, it referred to the age-determination documents listed in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

It also relied on the principle that admissibility of a school record under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not by itself establish its probative value: the source of the date-of-birth entry and the basis on which it was recorded must be adequately proved.

The judgment discusses Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Alamelu v. State, among other authorities, on that evidentiary principle.

The court further noted that consent would be immaterial if the victim were proved to be a minor.

The court rejected the allegation of force because the victim’s earlier accounts differed from her trial testimony, and the witnesses at whose homes she stayed did not report threats or coercion; it found the evidence instead indicated a voluntary relationship with the first accused.

On age, the bonafide certificate stated the victim’s date of birth but did not identify the record on which it was based. The prosecution did not produce that underlying record, the relevant earlier school records, or the victim’s matriculation certificate; nor did her parents testify to her age.

The court therefore held that the certificate could not reliably establish that she was a minor.

With force unproved and minority unestablished, the court concluded that the convictions could not be sustained.

It ordered that any fine paid be refunded and that any bail bonds executed be discharged.