The Delhi High Court recently acquitted the accused for rape case of 2005 under section 376 IPC, primarily relying that prosecution failed to proof the victim’s age. The Court has held that the prosecution bears the burden of proof that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. The core issue was not the relationship itself, which arguably admitted, but failure of the prosecution to prove the victim’s age as beyond a reasonable doubt as per the evidence submitted.
The principle “innocent until proven guilty” is the cornerstone of criminal justice, but sometimes, a court’s reliance on technical legal proof feel like a profound failure of justice for the victim. The court decision particularly emphasis on the unreliability of the school admission record as conclusive proof of age.
In the rape Case Uday Pal vs. State, the FIR No. 426/2005 was registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Incident took Place on 11th November 2005 when the victim went missing from her home. The minor was 11 years at the time of incident as per school record. The Police registered FIR, appellant was apprehended and victim was recovered from his jhuggi in Faridabad, Haryana. The appellant was charged under section 363(kidnapping), 376 (Rape) and 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage) of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the kidnapping charges (Sections 363/366). The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC (Rape) because sexual intercourse was admitted and the court concluded, based on the school record that the victim was below the age of consent (which was 16 years in 2005). The appellant was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. His appeal against this conviction led to the Delhi High Court judgment.
The Delhi High Court , Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that “Considering that the incident took place in 2005, when the statutory age of consent was 16 years, and in light of the of the absence of conclusive evidence to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16 years at that time, especially when the prosecutrix herself claims that she was above the said age, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Delhi High Court observed that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under 16 years of age. Failure to establish this fact is fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court found that the school certificate submitted was not authentic. The prosecution did not produce reliable documents. As the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim’s age, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside the conviction. The ruling for convictions was based on the legal standards applicable at the time of offence, by protecting the rights of both victims and accused. The Court set aside the trial court order and acquitted the appellant from all charges.
About Author
I am Pallavi Sharma, a legal practitioner and researcher with a growing interest in cyber law, constitutional law, and women’s and child rights. I recently started to contribute through analytical writing and awareness initiatives on contemporary legal issues.