Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside Convictions in Kidnapping, Confinement and Rape Case for Lack of Proof of Age and Consent

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard the criminal appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1445 of 2025, by which the appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad that had confirmed his conviction under Sections 376, 363 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code while reducing the sentence. The appeal raised central questions whether the prosecution proved the victim’s age, and whether the essential ingredients of kidnapping from lawful guardianship, wrongful confinement and rape were established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions under Sections 376, 363 and 342 IPC and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age and the absence of consent or force in sexual relations. The Court emphasised the limited probative value of entries in school or official registers unless their provenance was proved and relevant witnesses were examined. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The evidentiary value of such an entry made in public or official registers may be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, admissibility is distinct from probative value. … Mere production and marking of a document as exhibited by the Court does not amount to proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by leading substantive evidence, that is, by the ‘evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue’.” The Court also noted that “Courts of law cannot make a determination of guilt in thin air, based on estimations.”

Background The prosecution case, as found by the Trial Court, was that the appellant, a frequent visitor to the victim’s house, took the then-student from her parental home to Hyderabad on 4 August 2012, tied a turmeric thread creating an impression of marriage, confined her in a house at Shadnagar and had sexual intercourse with her. A missing complaint was lodged on 8 August 2012; the appellant was later hospitalised after an accident and the victim returned home and gave a statement. Trial Court convicted under Sections 363, 342 and 376 IPC but acquitted on Section 366/366A. The High Court confirmed conviction but reduced sentences, observing that “if the Court is satisfied from the evidence of the victim, a conviction can be solely based on such evidence” and stressing that “the prosecutrix is no more treated as an accomplice.”

On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised the primary documentary proof of age—Ex.P11, the school birth/ admission entry—and precedent on its probative value. Relying on authorities that entries in school registers were admissible but required proof of the source of information, the Court found the school headmaster lacked personal knowledge of the basis for the entry and the prosecution had not examined the person who made the entry or produced earlier primary school records. Investigating officers did not pursue age verification with contemporaneous registers. The victim and her family gave no clear evidence of her exact date of birth.

On the merits of kidnapping, confinement and rape, the Court recorded that the evidence showed the appellant was a known visitor to the family, the victim voluntarily accompanied him and cohabited for about two months, and there was no clear evidence of force, physical restraint or attempts to escape. The Court held that the prosecution did not prove absence of consent or the essential ingredients of Sections 363, 342 and 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the appellant. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 863 Case Title: Birka Shiva v. The State of Telangana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): S. Bhasker Reddy, Advocate (appeared in lower court records) For the Respondent(s): Not specified in the excerpt provided