J&K&L High Court Acquits Man In Rape Case, Says School Certificate Alone Cannot Conclusively Prove Prosecutrix Was Minor

The Court thus set aside the conviction of an appellant under Section 376 RPC, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kulgam, whereby the appellant had been convicted for offences him under Section 376 RPC, and the order of sentence sentencing him to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“The entries regarding date of birth contained in the scholar's register and secondary school examination certificates have no probative value. Such entries may be admissible in evidence but the same cannot be taken as conclusive proof with regard to the age of a person. The correctness or otherwise of the particulars recorded in the school Register would all depend upon as to on what basis such entry has been made.”

The prosecution case was that in 2018, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report alleging that his daughter had left home and was kidnapped by the appellant. The police recovered the prosecutrix from the appellant's custody. During investigation, the prosecutrix was found to be pregnant with a foetus of 36 weeks. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 RPC but acquitted him of the charge under Section 363 RPC (kidnapping), holding that the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellant out of her own free will and volition.

However, relying on a school leaving certificate showing her date of birth as January 14, 2001 (making her around 17 years and 11 months at the time of the incident in December 2018), the trial court held that she was a minor and therefore her consent was immaterial, constituting statutory rape.

Court's Observation

The Court examined the evidence regarding the prosecutrix's age. The father (PW-1) could not remember her date of birth or even the year of birth of his children. The elder sister (PW-4) admitted she had no knowledge of the prosecutrix's date of birth. The school teacher (PW-7) who produced the school leaving certificate admitted that the prosecutrix had taken admission only in the 9th standard, that he did not know on what basis the date of birth was recorded in the admission register, and that there was no record from the Chowkidar or Municipal Committee available with the school. The teacher was not posted at the school at the time of her admission.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, (1988) Supp. SCC 604, and the Calcutta High Court judgment in Raju Mitra v. State of West Bengal, 2007 SCC OnLine Cal. 72, holding that while a school admission register has evidentiary value, it cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of age. The court must examine the basis on which the entry was made whether it was based on a birth certificate, a parent's statement, or some other reliable source.

“… In these circumstances, the particulars of date of birth recorded in EXTPW-7 may be admissible in evidence but they have no probative value in the absence of evidence relating to the basis on which such particulars have been recorded”, the court remarked.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (recorded during investigation) categorically stated that she had not been raped, that she had threatened to commit suicide to compel the appellant to accompany her to Jammu, and that she had developed physical relations with him out of her own free will.

In her trial testimony also, the Court noted that she admitted that she had gone with the appellant voluntarily and that she had threatened to commit suicide if he did not accompany her. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.

Consensual Relationship And Misuse Of Law

The Court observed that the established facts showed a love affair between two young persons studying in the same school, which culminated in physical relations out of their own will and volition. The Court noted that the adamant attitude of the prosecutrix's family had led to a criminal prosecution.

Referring to the Supreme Court's recent observations in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 29, and the factors highlighted by the Allahabad High Court in Satish alias Chand v. State of UP, the Court emphasized that consensual relationships between teenagers should not be treated as rape cases. The Court noted that even if it were assumed (though not proved) that the prosecutrix was less than eighteen years of age, considering the closeness of age and the consensual nature of the relationship, convicting the appellant of rape would be a perversity of justice.

In light of these findings the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, and directed the immediate release of the appellant from custody.

Case Title: Yawar Ahmad Bhagat v. UT of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

Appellant: Mr. Zahid Hussain with M/S Bhat Shafi, Zahid Afzal, Naveed Bukhtiyar

Respondent: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA

Click here to read/download Judgment