Radiological age evidence and contradictory testimony failed to prove minority or non-consensual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad, in Sessions Trial No. 136 of 1986 for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 376 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that, on 12 November 1985, the appellant abducted the complainant’s daughter from Moradabad after alluring her, and took cash and jewellery with her.

The victim testified that the appellant represented that her mother had met with an accident, took her first by rickshaw and thereafter by matador to Sambhal, threatened her with a knife, kept her there for approximately eight days, and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.

The defence disputed the allegations and asserted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the appellant.

The victim’s age was determined principally through medical and radiological evidence as approximately 17 years, with the medical evidence acknowledging a possible variation of about six months.

The High Court noted material inconsistencies between the evidence of the victim, her father, the recovery witnesses, the medical evidence and the investigation, including the absence of injuries or bloodstains and the failure of the victim to raise an alarm during her alleged confinement and transit.

The appellant preferred the present appeal against his conviction.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of the alleged occurrence, so as to negate the relevance of consent under the applicable law.

2. Whether the prosecution established that the appellant abducted or induced the victim and committed rape against her will and without her consent.

3. Whether the contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the uncertainty in the medical determination of age entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt.

The court applied Sections 366 and 376 IPC concerning kidnapping/abduction of a woman for illicit purposes and rape, respectively, and required the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of those offences beyond reasonable doubt.

It applied the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim’s minority through reliable evidence, and that radiological age estimation is approximate and must be assessed with an appropriate margin of error.

The court relied on Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (9) SCC 248, for the principles that radiological evidence may not conclusively establish minority; that the accused must receive the benefit of reasonable doubt concerning age; and that, where the prosecutrix remained with the accused and had opportunities to complain but did not do so, the possibility of consensual conduct may not be wholly excluded.

The general criminal law principle that reasonable doubt must operate in favour of the accused was also applied.

The court found that the prosecution evidence was materially inconsistent. The victim alleged forcible transportation, threats, physical injuries and bleeding, but the medical officer found no incised wounds, abrasions or bleeding, and no bloodstains on her clothes were recorded by the father or the investigating officer.

Her account was also inconsistent with her father’s version regarding the manner and place of recovery, and the recovery witness could not identify the person who allegedly fled from the rickshaw.

The court further considered it significant that the victim allegedly travelled through public places, remained in Sambhal for eight days among several persons, and did not raise an alarm or complain to anyone.

Since the only substantial age evidence was radiological and placed her age at approximately 17 years, subject to a possible variation, the court held that minority was not proved with certainty.

Applying Rajak Mohammad, the court concluded that the possibility of voluntary accompaniment and consensual conduct could not be ruled out, and that the cumulative inconsistencies created reasonable doubt regarding abduction and rape.

The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were therefore set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges on the benefit of doubt.

As the appellant was already on bail, he was not required to surrender; his bail bonds were cancelled and the sureties were discharged.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.