Delhi High Court Acquits Man in Rape Case After 7 Years Under Section 376 IPC | Trial Court Conviction Based on Forged Birth Certificate to Prove Minor’s Age Set Aside
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has set aside a trial court conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority. The Court noted that the trial court had wrongly relied on a birth certificate later found to be forged, despite acknowledging its falsity. Referring to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s 1996 birth register, the bench observed that no authentic record supported the claimed date of birth. As the victim described the relationship as consensual, the Court acquitted the appellant and nullified set aside his sentence.
The appeal before the High Court of Delhi concerned a conviction and sentence imposed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had directed the appellant to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a monetary fine, with the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The matter began in March 2013 when the complainant reported that her daughter had gone missing. Several days later, the girl returned and made a statement describing her movements with another individual. Initially, no allegation was made against the present appellant. Subsequently, in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the girl alleged that she had been in a relationship with the appellant and that physical relations had occurred on the assurance of marriage.
On this basis, Section 376 IPC was added and the appellant was arrested. At trial, the prosecution examined witnesses including the complainant, the girl, and school authorities who produced admission records and a birth certificate to prove minority. The girl testified that relations were consensual, while the complainant submitted the birth certificate as proof of age. Later, an official from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi deposed that the certificate filed with the charge sheet was forged. No ossification test was conducted, and apart from her oral testimony regarding her date of birth, no corroborative record was produced.
The prosecution argued that the girl was seventeen and a half years old at the relevant time, making consent immaterial. The defence contended that her statements were inconsistent, that her testimony was contradicted by the complainant, and that no reliable evidence of minority existed.
The Court observed that “the entire fulcrum of the prosecution case claiming the prosecutrix to be a minor was dependent on the testimony of the mother of the victim and the school record. Concededly, the admission form was based on the date of birth certificate provided by the mother of the child victim which, as recorded in the aforesaid proceedings, was found to be forged.”
It recorded that “the prosecutrix claims her date of birth to be 16.10.1995, however except for her oral statement, there is no other corroborative evidence on record. Concededly, no bone ossification test of the victim was carried out.”
The Court further stated that “the name of the appellant was not spelt out in the first statement made by the victim on 30.03.2013… The name of the appellant figured for the first time on 01.04.2013, when the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.”
It observed that “even otherwise, the victim at no place has claimed that rape was committed, rather she has maintained that the physical relations established were consensual.”
Finally, the Court recorded that “the Trial Court, despite recording in its proceedings that the date of birth certificate produced through PW-3 from the school record was found to be forged, manifestly erred in convicting the appellant relying on the same very certificate.”
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds; the impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted.” The Court directed that “The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.”
“The personal bond furnished by the appellant stands cancelled and his surety is discharged. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Trial Court and the concerned Jail Superintendent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Sharan Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent/State: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State; Dr. M.P. Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
Case Title: Arjun v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8203
Case Number: CRL.A. 1004/2018
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
