Unsubstantiated school-register entries cannot prove a victim’s minority.

The prosecution alleged that Manoj and Dhanraj took the victim from her home and that Motilal later took her to Ahmedabad, where he had sexual intercourse with her.

The victim was recovered from Motilal on 21 December 2015; the prosecution relied on school records to establish that she was under 18.

The Special Judge convicted Manoj and Dhanraj under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, and Motilal under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.

In these appeals, the appellants disputed the victim’s age and the allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under 18 on the date of the alleged incident.

Whether the evidence established that the appellants kidnapped the victim and that Motilal committed the alleged sexual offence, notwithstanding the victim’s conduct and the inconsistencies in the evidence.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act permits official records made in the discharge of official duty to be admitted, but a school record’s evidentiary value to prove age may be limited where the basis for the recorded date of birth is not established (Alamelu v. State).

The Court also referred to the age-determination principles in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, including the need to assess the reliability of age documents and the prescribed hierarchy of records.

Under S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, voluntary departure by a minor, without evidence of the accused’s inducement or active participation in forming the minor’s intention to leave, does not by itself establish “taking” for kidnapping.

The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; although a victim’s sole testimony can sustain a conviction, it must inspire confidence.

The school-register entry gave the victim’s date of birth as 9 October 1999, but the witness who proved the record was not its author, could not explain the basis for the entry, and acknowledged overwriting and a difference in ink.

The victim and her mother gave inconsistent evidence about the date of birth, and no supporting birth record was produced; the Court therefore held that minority had not been proved.

As to the alleged offences, the victim said she did not raise an alarm or complain during the journey or while in Ahmedabad, and the Court considered this conduct alongside contradictions and omissions in the evidence and the younger sister’s admission that she had been tutored.

In the absence of reliable proof of the victim’s minority and of evidence sufficient to establish kidnapping or the alleged sexual offence beyond reasonable doubt, the Court found the convictions unsafe.

It allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted all three appellants.

Their bail bonds were ordered to continue for a further six months under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.