Two-year margin in ossification test establishes majority, vitiating convictions for kidnapping and rape.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on August 10, 2010, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that on March 6, 2008, the Appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix, took her to Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, and raped her.

The prosecutrix was recovered on March 12, 2008.

During the trial, the prosecution relied on school records showing her date of birth as December 12, 1993 (~15 years old) and an ossification test placing her age between 15.3 and 16.4 years.

Conversely, the Appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, the prosecutrix had insisted on marriage to avoid family scolding, and she had represented herself as 19 years old.

In her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the prosecutrix supported the Appellant's version, but she later turned hostile toward him during the trial.

The court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, which establish a hierarchy for age determination, prioritizing matriculation certificates and "first attended" school records over medical tests.

It relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana to extend these rules to child victims.

Regarding medical evidence, the court cited Jyoti Prakash Rai @ Jyoti Prakash v. State of Bihar and Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, which mandate a margin of error of +/- 2 years in ossification tests, generally applied in favor of the accused.

Furthermore, per Vijay v. State of M.P. and P. Yuvaprakash v. State of T.N., the court emphasized that while a victim's testimony can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be of "sterling quality" and that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used to test the truthfulness of court testimony.

The court found the school records unreliable as they did not originate from the "first attended school" and were based on an unproduced affidavit from the mother.

Applying the +/- 2-year margin of error to the ossification test (16.4 years upper limit), the court determined the prosecutrix could be treated as 18.4 years old, making her a major capable of consent.

On the merits, the court noted the prosecutrix’s trial testimony—alleging she was transported to Himachal Pradesh while unconscious on a public bus—was "improbable" and lacked "sterling quality".

The court observed that her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which admitted to voluntary elopement and marriage, was likely the truthful narrative.

It rejected her claim that the 164 statement was made under pressure, noting she was in a secure shelter home ("Nirmal Chhaya") while the Appellant was in police custody at the time.

Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the charges of kidnapping, abduction, or rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment dated August 10, 2010, allowed the appeal, and ordered the immediate release of the Appellant.