The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old girl, emphasizing that “authentic” documentation is mandatory to establish a minor’s age under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja ruled that documents such as horoscopes (janam patri) and vaccination cards do not constitute legal proof of age.
The ruling underscores a critical legal threshold: in POCSO proceedings, the victim’s status as a minor is the “prime question.” Without a valid birth certificate or statutory proof, the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked.
The prosecution alleged that in January 2013, the respondent kidnapped a girl, then aged approximately 16, from her home. The girl was eventually traced to Amritsar after she made a phone call home. The respondent was arrested at the Amritsar railway station and charged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and rape, as well as under the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault.
The respondent maintained his innocence throughout the trial, claiming he was falsely implicated. In July 2019, a trial court acquitted him of all charges, a decision the State subsequently challenged in the High Court.
A central pillar of the prosecution’s case was the girl’s age. However, the High Court found the evidentiary basis for her minority status to be legally insufficient. The girl’s parents were unable to state her exact date of birth or produce an original birth certificate.
The girl’s father testified that the family had used a horoscope, prepared at the time of her birth, to secure her school admission. The court rejected this reliance, stating:
“Admittedly, janam patri (horoscope) cannot be considered as proof of date of birth. Therefore, the age recorded in the school record based on the horoscope cannot also be considered as proof of age.”
The bench further clarified that the date of birth mentioned in a Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card (vaccination card) is also not a legitimate or “authentic” document for proving age in a court of law.
Beyond the issue of age, the High Court observed significant flaws in the survivor’s testimony. The bench noted that her statements did not inspire the “sterling quality” confidence required for a conviction.
The court found the testimony marked by “material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies” regarding the circumstances of her departure from home, her prior contact with the accused, and the alleged offence itself. Furthermore, the bench raised doubts regarding the “place and manner” of the respondent’s arrest.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the respondent’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal.
“The prosecution has failed to prove the respondent’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s findings do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference,” the bench held in its judgment passed on Wednesday.
