School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Victim's Minority in POCSO Cases: Gujarat HC

The High Court of Gujarat has reinforced the high threshold for proving age in criminal trials, ruling that mere production of school leaving certificates without establishing the underlying source of information cannot sustain a conviction for child sexual assault. The verdict underscores that admissibility of official records under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not automatically equate to conclusive probative value, effectively shielding the presumption of innocence in the absence of substantive proof of minority.

A division bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani heard the appeal filed by the complainant under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against a trial court order acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(A), 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Key Takeaways

Strict Age Verification

Prosecution must prove the source and basis of age entries in school registers; mere production of certificates without examining parents or informants is insufficient for a POCSO conviction.

Probative vs. Admissibility

While official records are admissible in evidence, their evidentiary weight depends on proving the authenticity and the reliability of the underlying data source.

Presumption of Consent

In cases where minority is not established, the court may infer consensual conduct based on the victim's behaviour, such as a lack of resistance or failure to raise alarm despite opportunities.

Scope of Acquittal Appeals

Appellate courts will not interfere with orders of acquittal unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or perverse, as acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence.

Court Observations on Evidentiary Value of School Records

The High Court scrutinized the prosecution's failure to examine the victim's parents to prove the source of the birth date recorded in school documents. The Court noted that the In-charge Principal had no personal knowledge of how the entry was made. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "While such documents may be admitted in evidence, their evidentiary weight depends on proof of their authenticity and the source of the underlying information. Mere a production and marking of documents as exhibited by the Court, does not amount to proof of its contents. It’s execution has to be proved by leading substantive evidence, that is, by the evidence of those persons, who can vouchsafe for truth of the facts in issue."

Referring to the recent Supreme Court precedent in Birka Shiva Vs. State of Telangana ( "2025 INSC 863": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 941), the bench held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. Consequently, the court found the submission regarding the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to be misconceived.

Failure to Prove Non-Consensual Intercourse

Analyzing the victim's conduct, the court highlighted that she stayed in a residential area for over a month with the accused and his family without making any "hue and cry" or attempting to escape. The Court has following directions:

"In the result, on considering the evidence on record, the trial court was justified in arriving at the correct conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the acquittal are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference by us. With the observations as aforesaid, the present appeal, at the admission stage, is dismissed."

Ratio

Admissibility of a school certificate or birth record under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is distinct from its probative value; such records do not constitute conclusive proof of age unless the execution and the source of the underlying information are proved by substantive evidence from persons who can vouch for the truth of the facts.

Background

The prosecution alleged that the victim, purportedly aged 17 years and 4 months, was kidnapped on a motorcycle by the accused in June 2019 and confined in a house in Village Dholka for over a month, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The FIR was registered a week after the victim returned home. The Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and observed that the victim appeared to be a consenting party. Relying on Narendrabhai Gulabpari Goswami and Birka Shiva Vs. State of Telangana ( "2025 INSC 863": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 941), the High Court affirmed that without proving the foundation fact of minority, the stringent presumptions of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2768 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:61830-DB
Case Title: MANJUBEN D/O. NAVLABHAI DHIRIYABHAI MOHANIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MS JAYSHREE C BHATT(170)
For the Respondent(s): MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 25090