Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction for Kidnapping, Sexual Assault, and Administering Intoxicants; Reiterates Consent of a Minor is Legally Irrelevant and Affirms Primacy of School Records in Determining Age

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to his conviction and sentence under Sections 328, 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offense, rendering her consent immaterial, and affirmed that the evidence supported the conviction.

Facts:

• On 19.11.2007, the prosecutrix (aged 14.5 years) went missing after leaving for school. Her father lodged a missing person report with the police and identified the appellant, a neighbor, as a suspect since he was also missing at the same time.
• The prosecutrix returned home on 29.11.2007, appearing intoxicated. Her parents took her to the hospital, where she underwent a medical examination and treatment for consuming an intoxicant.
• The prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) revealed that she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant to Haryana, where they lived together for nine days as “husband and wife.” She alleged that the appellant established sexual relations with her during this period.
• During the investigation, the appellant was arrested, and both he and the prosecutrix underwent medical examinations. The prosecutrix’s school records were relied upon to establish her age, confirming that she was a minor.
• The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as follows:
  • Section 363 (Kidnapping): 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 (default: 3 months of additional imprisonment).
  • Section 366 (Kidnapping with intent to compel marriage): 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 (default: 6 months of additional imprisonment).
  • Section 328 (Causing hurt by poison/intoxicants): 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 (default: 3 months of additional imprisonment).
  • Section 376 (Rape): 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 (default: 1 year of additional imprisonment).

Issues:

1. Whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offense, thereby invalidating any alleged consent.
2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the prosecutrix’s testimony and school records, was sufficient to support the conviction.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant contested the conviction on the following grounds:

• Age of the prosecutrix: The appellant argued that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the incident and cited inconsistencies in her parents’ testimonies to support this claim.
• Consent: He claimed that the prosecutrix willingly accompanied him and that their relationship was consensual, citing her statements, letters, and diary entries expressing affection toward him.
• Credibility of testimony: The appellant contended that the prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, as it was influenced by her parents’ pressure.
• Fabrication of evidence: He argued that the prosecution’s case relied on conjectures and fabricated evidence, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), opposed the appeal and defended the trial court’s findings:

• Prosecutrix’s age: The State relied on the prosecutrix’s school records, which showed her date of birth as 10.05.1993, making her 14.5 years old at the time of the offense.
• Testimonies: The State argued that the prosecutrix and her parents gave consistent and corroborated testimonies regarding her age, the appellant’s actions, and the circumstances of the incident.
• Irrelevance of consent: The APP emphasized that the prosecutrix’s consent was immaterial since she was a minor, and the appellant’s actions constituted a clear violation of the law.

Analysis of the Law:

The court focused on two key legal principles:

1. Determination of Age: Under the Juvenile Justice Act and relevant rules, school records, such as the admission register, are given primacy in determining the age of a person. In this case:
   • The prosecutrix’s school records were admitted as evidence and were unchallenged by the defense.
   • The admission register showed her date of birth as 10.05.1993, making her 14.5 years old at the time of the incident.
   • The appellant failed to provide any evidence to discredit the school records or suggest their manipulation.
2. Consent of a Minor: The court reiterated that under Section 375 of the IPC, consent from a minor is legally invalid. Even if the prosecutrix willingly accompanied the appellant and expressed affection, these facts could not absolve the appellant of criminal liability.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to several precedents to emphasize the reliability of school records for determining age and the legal position on minors’ consent:

• Farid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024): Affirmed the use of school admission registers as primary evidence of age.
• Ram Prasad v. State of Maharashtra (2018): Held that consent from a minor is immaterial in sexual offense cases.
• Surjeet Kumar v. State (2023): Reiterated that school records carry significant evidentiary weight unless specifically challenged.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The court found that the prosecutrix’s school records conclusively proved that she was a minor at the time of the offense. The defense’s arguments, based on isolated parts of witness testimonies, were speculative and unsupported by evidence.
• The prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by her parents and other evidence, including the medical examination and her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
• The appellant’s reliance on alleged letters and expressions of affection from the prosecutrix did not affect the finding of guilt, as these were irrelevant given her age.
• The court emphasized that the appellant’s failure to challenge the authenticity of the school records or present contrary evidence further weakened his case.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentences. The court found no merit in the appellant’s arguments and ruled that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces key legal principles:

1. The primacy of school records in determining age, especially in cases involving minors.
2. The immateriality of consent in cases of sexual offenses against minors.
3. The importance of consistent and corroborated testimonies in securing convictions.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Foreign National Accused of Overstaying Visa; Clarifies Distinction Between Judicial Custody and Executive Detention Under the Foreigners Act