Recently, in a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed two revision petitions challenging the acquittal of an individual accused of kidnapping and raping a minor, affirming the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority at the time of the alleged offence. The Court addressed critical evidentiary issues under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), particularly concerning the determination of age and consent in cases involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault.
The case arose from allegations that the accused had kidnapped the petitioner's daughter with the intent to compel her into marriage, an offence under Section 366 of the IPC, and subjected her to rape under Section 376 of the IPC. Additionally, the prosecution charged the accused with kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC, which requires proof that the victim was under 18 years of age and was taken from lawful guardianship without consent. The trial court acquitted the accused, prompting revision petitions from the victim's father and the State of Rajasthan. The High Court was called upon to determine whether the trial court had erred in discarding the school-issued certificate as proof of the victim’s age and in concluding that the evidence on record was inadequate to support the charges.
The prosecution relied heavily on a certificate purportedly issued by the victim's school to establish her minority. However, the High Court found this document unreliable, observing, "Ostensibly, a certificate of the school can only be issued based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school and entries in scholar register are to be made on the basis of the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student. Here in this case, neither the admission form nor the scholar register or any mark-sheet has been brought on record nor any officer of the School has been examined to establish the above fact." While referring to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deems public school registers as relevant and admissible evidence, the Court held that a certificate lacking corroboration from such records or school officials could not determine the victim's age. The absence of the certificate during the initial investigation further undermined its credibility.
Additionally, the prosecution presented an ossification test report estimating the victim's age between 15 and 17 years. The Court, however, noted the inherent limitations of such tests and stated, "A radiologist or medical jurist based on his experience and the formula given in the test of medical jurisprudence makes an idea regarding the estimate age of a person, however, it always remains an estimate. It is an opinion of a radiologist or a medical jurist and it's nature is always opinionative, so no definite age can be given by a medical officer and in this case it was given." The Court further acknowledged the settled legal principle that ossification tests carry a margin of error of up to two years, rendering them insufficient to conclusively establish the victim’s age as below 18.
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally weakened by its failure to prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, an essential requirement for a conviction under Section 363 of the IPC. It concurred with the trial court's view that there was no “material of impeccable quality or clinching evidence” to establish the victim’s age as below 18. Additionally, the Court noted that the evidence indicated the victim had voluntarily left her parental home and accompanied the appellant of her own free will. In the absence of force or inducement, the ingredients necessary to sustain charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC were not satisfied.
On the charge of rape under Section 376 of the IPC, the High Court upheld the trial court’s evaluation of the victim’s testimony, noting that her statement clearly reflected that the relationship was consensual and devoid of coercion or force. The Court remarked that the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence was “very perfect and in consonance with law,” and accordingly found no reason to interfere with the finding of acquittal on the charge of rape.
Consequently, by dismissing the revision petitions, the Court reaffirmed that convictions under the IPC must be grounded in clear, reliable, and corroborated evidence. Its detailed scrutiny of the school certificate and the ossification test stressed the prosecutorial obligation to establish the victim’s minority through unimpeachable proof. In upholding the acquittal, the Court safeguarded the accused’s rights in the absence of conclusive evidence, reinforcing the standard of rigorous judicial scrutiny in cases involving serious allegations.
Case Title: Raisuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 34/2007
Coram: Justice Farjand Ali
Advocate for Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Anand Purohit, Adv. Vikram Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A. HM Saraswat
Picture Source :
