School certificate without underlying record lacks probative value to prove age for establishing statutory rape.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence.

The court held

The Trial Court erred in relying on a school certificate with no established evidentiary basis.

It also directed

The Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 12.03.2025 and the sentence order dated 14.03.2025; the Appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from custody immediately.

01Facts

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on 12.03.2025 for kidnapping and rape (Section 363/376 RPC) based on a report that he kidnapped a girl in December 2018.

¶ 1-2

The prosecution alleged the victim was a minor (under 18) and had become pregnant during the incident.

¶ 3

Though the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant of kidnapping, finding the prosecutrix accompanied him voluntarily, it convicted him of statutory rape, holding that her consent was immaterial due to her minority based on a school leaving certificate.

¶ 7

The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecutrix was an adult and that physical relations were consensual.

¶ 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence.

¶ 16

ii.2. Whether the conviction for statutory rape under Section 376 RPC can be sustained if the victim’s minority is not proved and the act was consensual.

¶ 16, 31

03Law Applied

Section 376 of the RPC regarding rape and the evidentiary standards for determining age.

Entries in school registers and certificates have no conclusive probative value regarding age unless the basis of such entries is proven, as established in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit.

¶ 19

Necessity of examining the informant who provided the birth details to the school as per Raju Mitra v. State of West Bengal.

¶ 20

The "judicial discretion" and "contextual assessment" required in cases involving consensual relationships between teenagers, as highlighted in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & anr.

¶ 32

Provisions in the judgment · 6

Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 Section 109Section 363Section 376

Ranbir Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 Section 161Section 164ASection 342

04Reasoning

The school certificate (EXTPW-7) was deemed unreliable because the witness (PW-7) admitted the school had no record of the basis for the date of birth entry and that the prosecutrix joined the school only in the 9th standard.

¶ 22-23

The father (PW-1) and sister (PW-4) of the prosecutrix both admitted in cross-examination that they did not know her exact date of birth or the dates of birth of other family members.

¶ 24-26

The prosecutrix herself admitted to compelling the Appellant to take her to Jammu by threatening suicide and that their physical relationship was entirely consensual.

¶ 14-15

In the absence of proof of minority, consensual relations between two young persons in a love affair do not constitute rape.

¶ 31-33