School register entries lack evidentiary value for age determination absent the underlying material supporting the entry.

The victim went missing on July 21, 2021, after leaving home to buy a notebook.

Her father lodged a missing report alleging that the appellant, Raju Kumar Anand, abducted her for marriage.

The victim was recovered from Raju's possession on July 23, 2021.

Medical examination revealed a ruptured hymen but no external injuries.

The prosecution relied on a school dakhil-kharij register (Ex. P-3(c)) stating her date of birth as July 2, 2007, to establish she was a minor (14 years old) at the time of the incident.

The Trial Court convicted Raju under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years RI.

Shyam Sundar was convicted under Section 363/109 IPC for abetment.

The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing the victim was a consenting adult and the age proof was legally insufficient.

1. Whether the school dakhil-kharij register, in the absence of primary supporting material, is sufficient to prove the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the victim was a consenting party to the alleged acts, thereby vitiating the charges of kidnapping and rape.

The Court applied Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), and 109 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

It relied on Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the relevancy of public records.

It followed the precedent in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006), which established that school register entries have low evidentiary value unless the underlying material for the entry is produced.

It further cited Alamelu v. State (2011) and Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of UP (2022) regarding the standards of proof for age determination.

Finally, it applied the hierarchy of age-determination documents mandated by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, as affirmed in P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023).

The Court observed that the dakhil-kharij register entry was made solely on the oral information of the victim’s father without any birth certificate or Kotwari Panji.

The Principal (PW-1) admitted he did not make the entries himself and no prior school records (Class I-V) were verified.

Under the principles of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi, the Court held that such a document lacks the "clinching" evidentiary value required to deprive an accused of their liberty under Article 21.

Regarding the allegation of force, the Court noted the victim's conduct: she accompanied the accused on a motorcycle through public areas without screaming for help and stayed in a rented house for two days without protest.

Given the failure to prove minority and the evidence suggesting the victim was a consenting party, the Court found the essential ingredients for kidnapping and non-consensual sexual intercourse were not met.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor on the date of the incident.

It further concluded that the victim was a consenting party, rendering the convictions under the IPC and POCSO Act unsustainable.

Appellant Raju Kumar Anand was ordered to be released forthwith, and appellant Shyam Sundar's bail bonds were cancelled.

The appellants were directed to furnish personal bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 BNSS).