Ossification test results and lack of primary age evidence warrant acquittal in consensual inter-religious marriage cases.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on May 23, 2008, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The prosecution alleged that on May 16, 2004, the Appellant enticed the prosecutrix (the complainant’s daughter) and took her away

The prosecutrix and Appellant traveled from Delhi to West Bengal, where they registered their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on July 9, 2004

They lived together for approximately two months before being located by the police

While the prosecutrix initially supported the Appellant in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., she turned hostile during the trial, alleging she was kidnapped and raped under pressure

The Appellant challenged the conviction, asserting that the prosecutrix was a consenting major

1. Whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, thereby vitiating her consent for the purposes of Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC

2. Whether the sexual relationship between the Appellant and the prosecutrix constituted rape under Section 376 IPC, given their subsequent marriage and the prosecutrix’s alleged consent

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (as interpreted in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and K.P. Kiran Kumar v. State), which establish a hierarchy of evidence for age determination: first, the matriculation certificate; second, the municipal birth certificate; and third, the ossification test

Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, which states school registers lack evidentiary value unless the person providing the information is examined

Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC (pre-amendment), which stipulates that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape

The court examined the hierarchy of evidence for age determination, noting the absence of a matriculation or municipal birth certificate. It found the school records unreliable as the person who entered the date of birth was not examined.

The court prioritized the ossification test, which placed the prosecutrix's age between 17 and 18 years. Applying the principle of margin of error (+/- 2 years), the court determined she could be treated as a major at the time of the incident.

The court analyzed the prosecutrix's conduct, noting she lived with the Appellant for two months without protest and had registered a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, suggesting her subsequent hostile testimony was likely due to parental pressure.

The conviction of the Appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges.