Contradictory Age Records Make Prosecution Evidence Unreliable: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Conviction In 2005 Rape Case

The High Court overturned the conviction after finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below the age of consent at the time of the incident.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the appellant’s conviction for rape on the ground that the prosecutrix was a minor, even though she had voluntarily left home and lived with him as his wife.

A Single Bench comprising Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while quoting the Apex Court's ruling in Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, remarked that “where contradictions existed regarding the age of the prosecutrix and where the school register entry had not been made on the statement of her parents, the prosecution evidence regarding age could not be relied upon, especially in the absence of any ossification test.”

Advocate Rajesh Kumar Passey represented the appellant, while Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, represented the respondents.

Background

The FIR was registered in 2005 after the prosecutrix left her parental home and was later found living with the appellant. She stated during the investigation and trial that she had gone with him of her own volition and lived with him as his wife.

The trial court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping and abduction, but convicted him of rape solely on the ground that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, making consent immaterial under Section 376 IPC as the law stood at the time of the incident.

The conviction was based on a school certificate reflecting the prosecutrix’s date of birth. However, alternative age records, including statements before the magistrate, medical records, and testimony in court, all indicated different ages, most of which placed her above 16.

Arguing the appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted that the certificate was unreliable as the school witness admitted that the date of birth was not recorded on the basis of any parental declaration, nor supported by an original admission register.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court, upon hearing the matter, observed that the prosecution's evidence suffered from material inconsistencies. The Bench noted that the prosecutrix had herself stated before the court that she was born in 1988, while medical documents recorded her age as 14, the magistrate recorded her age as 16, and the school certificate recorded yet another age.

Due to these contradictions, and in the absence of an ossification test, the Court held that where contradictions existed regarding the age of the prosecutrix and where the school register entry had not been made on the statement of her parents, the prosecution's evidence regarding age could not be relied upon.

The Bench also noted that the school witness conceded that dates of birth are often recorded on approximations at the time of admission and that no supporting documents were available in this case. The Investigating Officer also admitted that he made no attempt to verify the age from the prosecutrix’s parents and did not examine the father, even though he was present at the time of the medical examination.

Since the alleged offence occurred when the statutory age of consent was 16, the Court held that the prosecution was required to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16. However, in the absence of reliable documentary or medical evidence, the Court concluded that the benefit of the doubt was required to be extended to the appellant.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the minority of the prosecutrix beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.  

Cause Title: Udai Pal v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9355)

Appearances

Appellant: Rajesh Kumar Passey, Advocate.

Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, with Avocates Puja Mann, Vipin Kumar Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment