School Records Not Conclusive Proof of Age If Entry Source Is Discredited: Delhi HC

In a decisive ruling reinforcing the evidentiary standards for age determination in criminal trials, the Delhi High Court has held that school register entries cannot serve as conclusive proof of a victim's minority when the informant who provided the data admits to fabricating the age. This judgment safeguards the accused against potential misuse of penal provisions where prosecution witnesses resile from their earlier claims regarding the victim's age at the time of the incident.

Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha presided over the appeal preferred by an accused who was previously convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The Court scrutinized the reliability of school records under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the validity of a conviction for rape under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 in cases of alleged consensual marital relationships where minority is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Primacy of Evidence Source in Age Determination

The High Court observed that while school records are generally relevant for determining age, they lose their conclusive character if the very person who supplied the information admits it was false. In the present case, both the prosecutrix (PW1) and her father (PW3) testified that the date of birth recorded in the school register was intentionally reduced to facilitate school admission.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "An entry regarding age in a school register, though relevant under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act), cannot by itself be treated as conclusive proof of age unless the source on which such entry was made is proved... In the case on hand, PW3 admitted in his testimony that he had mentioned a lesser age of PW1 at the time of her admission in school so that she could secure admission. PW1 also stated that the date of birth recorded in the school record was not her actual date of birth and that PW3 had deliberately mentioned a lesser age."

Consensual Relationship and Prosecution's Failure to Prove Minority

Noting the absence of a birth certificate from any municipal authority, a matriculation certificate, or an ossification test, the Bench found the prosecution's claim regarding the victim's minority to be on shaky ground. Since the victim herself testified to having entered into a voluntary marital relationship and 'nikah' with the accused, the essential elements of the offences were found to be missing.

The Court has following directions:

"The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Section 376(1) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. The accused is set at liberty and his bail bond shall stand cancelled and the sureties, if any, shall stand discharged."

Key Takeaways:

Evidentiary Standard for Age:

School records prepared solely based on parental declarations without secondary verification (like birth certificates) are insufficient to prove minority if the declarant admits the entry is false. 

Consensual Marriage Defense:

In POCSO cases where minority is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, evidence of a consensual marital relationship can lead to the acquittal of the accused from charges of sexual assault. 

Judicial Caution Against Vexatious Litigation:

Courts must be vigilant against the possibility of repetitive false complaints being used as a modus operandi to extract money, especially when multiple similar FIRs are filed by the same informant. 

Ratio Decidendi:

The entry of a date of birth in a school admission register, though relevant under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not substantive evidence of age if the source of that information is proved to be unreliable or intentionally incorrect. In the absence of independent medical or statutory proof of age, a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 cannot be sustained solely on discredited school records when the victim claims to be a major and in a consensual relationship.
 

Background:

The dispute originated from an FIR lodged by the father (PW3) in 2014, alleging his daughter (PW1) was 14 years old and had been kidnapped. The accused and PW1 were later found to have married and were living together in West Bengal, having a child from the union. The trial court had relied on a school register showing PW1's birth date as 04.03.2002 to convict the accused. However, during the trial, both the victim and the father admitted the school entry was false and that the victim was approximately 19 years old at the time of the incident. The High Court further noted that the father had filed a similar FIR for kidnapping against other individuals previously, which also resulted in acquittal, casting doubt on his motives. Citing the precedent in Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, the Court noted that while non-compliance with Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1970 (mandatory hearing) does not automatically vitiate proceedings, the substantive failure to prove the victim's age warranted the setting aside of the conviction.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 1030/2018
Case Title: Anarhul Haque V. State
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP; Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate for Victim (DHCLSC)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 489