School Certificate Or Birth Record Alone Cannot Prove Victim’s Age; Source Of Entry Must Be Established: Gujarat High Court

The High Court reaffirmed that its evidentiary weight depends upon proof of authenticity and the source from which the date of birth was entered.

The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS challenging a Special POCSO Court’s judgment acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana (2025), a Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani observed:

“A school certificate or birth record, alone does not prove a victim’s age. The evidentiary value of such an entry made in public or official register may be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, admissibility is distinct from probative value. While such documents may be admitted in evidence, their evidentiary weight depends on proof of their authenticity and the source of the underlying information. Mere a production and marking of documents as exhibited by the Court, does not amount to proof of its contents.”

The Bench added that the document’s execution and the truth of the facts contained in it had to be established through substantive evidence from persons capable of vouching for them.

Advocate Jigneshkumar M. Nayak appeared for the appellant-complainant. Additional Public Prosecutor L.B. Dabhi appeared for the State.

Background

The prosecution alleged that the victim was 16 years, eight months and 27 days old when the incident occurred in June 2024. The accused was consequently prosecuted for kidnapping, rape and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 28 documents. To establish the victim’s age, it relied upon an extract from the birth register and a birth certificate produced by the Talati-cum-Mantri of the concerned Gram Panchayat.

The Special Court found that the witness had no personal knowledge of the registration. Neither the hospital record nor an application by the person who supplied the birth information was produced, and the register did not disclose the source of the date of birth. It also noticed that the victim’s father signed documents, while the register extract contained the informant’s thumb impression.

The Special Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was below 18 and found that the remaining evidence did not prove kidnapping or non-consensual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt. It accordingly acquitted the accused.

The complainant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the birth certificate established the victim’s minority and that the Special Court had improperly rejected her testimony.

Court’s Observations

Acquittal Could Be Reversed Only For Compelling Reasons

The High Court observed that an appellate court could interfere with an acquittal where compelling circumstances existed and the judgment was perverse. However, it had to account for the accused’s presumption of innocence, which stood reinforced by the acquittal.

Referring to Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka (2026), the Bench stated: “In exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bear in mind the presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the learned Sessions Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided, unless there are reasons for interference.”

The Court found no perversity in the Special Court’s evaluation of the prosecution evidence.

Source Of Birth-Register Entry Was Not Proved

The Court observed that an official entry’s admissibility was different from the evidentiary weight to be assigned to it. The person producing a register need not necessarily possess knowledge of the facts underlying its entries.

The Bench noted that the Talati-cum-Mantri had admitted that he did not know who supplied the victim’s date of birth or at whose instance it was registered.

The Court stated: “The witness in his deposition, has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the registration of the date of birth and at whose instance, it has been recorded in the birth register. In the aforesaid context and evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court on the aspect of age, has observed that the prosecution has tried to prove that victim was minor, but what was the source of it and how the date came to be recorded with the Gram Panchayat, has not been proved and therefore, it is held by the learned Sessions Court that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was minor at the time of incident.”

Applying Birka Shiva (2025), the Court held that the prosecution’s failure to establish the source of the entry meant that the birth register and certificate could not prove minority merely because they had been produced and exhibited.

The Court consequently held: “Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation to held that, the prosecution failed to prove that, on the day of incident, the victim was minor as the prosecution failed to prove the source of date of birth recorded in the birth register.”

Evidence Did Not Justify Interference With Acquittal

The Court then examined the Special Court’s findings regarding the allegation that the victim had been forcibly taken and sexually assaulted.

It observed that the victim had travelled and remained with the accused without seeking assistance from the persons encountered during the journey or at the place where they stayed. The Court also noted omissions in her earlier statement concerning the alleged threats and force.

The Bench held: “In such circumstances, when the age of the victim has not been proved, then, she presumed to be an adult person and having regard to the conduct of the victim, as discussed, it seems that she is the consenting party and relationship during the stay at Neliyu was consensual in nature. Thus, the version of the victim that, she was under confinement of the accused and under the threat and against her wish and will, the accused committed rape upon her and also an act of penetrative assault is not believable and does not inspire confidence.”

The Court found that the Special Court’s conclusions were based upon the evidence and constituted a possible view, leaving no ground for appellate interference.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the victim’s minority or establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Finding no perversity in the Special Court’s appreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal at the admission stage and left the acquittal undisturbed.

Cause Title: Bhimbhai Virabhai Dhangri v. State of Gujarat and Another

Click here to read/download Judgment