Site icon Raw Law

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

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

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

Share this article

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:


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:


Respondent’s Arguments:

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


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:


Court’s Reasoning:


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

Exit mobile version