🏛️ DELHI HIGH COURT

Acquittal of accused in case under Sections 366 and 376 IPC due to prosecution’s failure to prove age of prosecutrix conclusively and material inconsistencies in her statements

Sections 366 and 376 IPC Allegation of abduction and rape – Prosecutrix’s age crucial for determining minority – Trial court relied on unproved photocopy of birth certificate – Ossification test indicated age between 18 to 19 years, creating doubt regarding minority of prosecutrix – Court held reliance on unproved birth certificate amounts to error in law. [Paras 8 to 9, 15]

RELEVANT PARAS :

8. In the present case, having gone through the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has failed to render a categorical finding regarding the age of the prosecutrix, which was a material aspect in the present case. It is noted that only a photocopy of the birth certificate was placed on record, which neither stood proved in accordance with law nor could be relied upon as admissible evidence to establish the age of the prosecutrix conclusively. On the other hand, the ossification test report, which forms part of the judicial record, has categorically opined that the prosecutrix was between 18 to 19 years of age at the relevant time.

9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to have recorded a clear and reasoned finding regarding the age of the prosecutrix, particularly when dealing with offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, where the minority of the prosecutrix is a material consideration. Though the learned Trial Court proceeded to observe that even if the age of the prosecutrix is taken as between 18 to 19 years, the same would be immaterial, this Court finds such reasoning to be unsustainable in law. The age of the prosecutrix, especially in cases alleging inducement or abduction, is a relevant and determinative factor. In the absence of any other reliable documentary proof of age, the ossification test report constitutes the best available evidence before the learned Trial Court, and due weight ought to have been accorded to the same while adjudicating the present matter.

15. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, which was neither produced by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, nor seized in accordance with law, nor proved through any admissible evidence. The record is conspicuously silent as to how the said document came to be placed on record, particularly when it was neither filed by the parents of the prosecutrix nor produced by the prosecution through any witness. The birth certificate relied upon by the learned Trial Court was admittedly a mere photocopy, unaccompanied by any seizure memo or supporting testimony establishing its authenticity. In such circumstances, reliance on an unproved document to determine the age of the prosecutrix amounts to an error in law.

TO READ THE JUDGMENT CLICK HERE 

JUDGMENT DELHI HIGH COURT THE LAW LITERATES

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (ADV VAIBHAV TOMAR)