Radiological age estimation carries a margin of error; benefit of doubt favors the accused in minority determination.

The State filed an appeal against the judgment dated 07-08-1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barmer, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 363, 376, 343, and 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that the victim "M", aged 13, was seen leaving with the respondent and was later recovered from a secluded place by the police.

The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and 18 documents to prove the charges.

The respondent maintained his innocence, and the trial court found the victim to be a consenting party, leading to the acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident.

2. Whether the sexual act was committed without the victim's consent or through forcible means.

3. Whether the respondent was guilty of kidnapping or wrongful confinement.

The Court applied Section 375(6) of the IPC (as it stood at the relevant time), which stipulates that consent is immaterial if the female is under 16 years of age.

Regarding age determination, the Court relied on medical jurisprudence principles, noting that radiological opinions based on "epiphysis fusion" are estimates rather than absolute certainties, allowing for a margin of error of approximately two years.

The Court also applied the legal precedents of Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1982 SC 1297) and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988 AIR 1796) concerning the evidentiary value of medical opinions in age determination.

The Court observed that no academic or educational records were produced to prove the victim's age; the prosecution relied solely on medical evidence.

PW-8 (Dr. A.K. Goyal) estimated the victim's age between 14 to 16 years but admitted in cross-examination that she could be 17.

Applying the two-year margin of error, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was under 16.

Regarding the allegation of rape, the Court found the victim to be a "consenting party" as she remained with the respondent for three days, traveled to various places, and failed to raise an alarm even when meeting third parties like "Deva".

Furthermore, the medical examination showed no signs of struggle or injury to her private parts, which is typically expected in cases of forcible intercourse on rough terrain.

The charges of kidnapping (Section 363) and wrongful confinement (Section 343) lacked any supporting evidence.

The Court emphasized that once an acquittal is granted, the presumption of innocence is strengthened, and appellate interference is only warranted if the judgment is perverse or contrary to law.

The Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent. The bail bonds were discharged.