Delhi High Court Acquits Man In Rape Case After 7 Yrs, Says Trial Court Ignored Forged Birth Certificate Used To Prove Minor Victim's Age

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed that the trial court “manifestly erred in convicting the appellant”, despite recording that the date of birth certificate produced by her mother to claim that she was a minor— was 'forged'.

The bench relied on MCD's Register of Birth from the year 1996, when the victim was claimed to be born, and noted that no such record of her birth existed in the MCD records.

“With the date of birth certificate of the victim not being proved, the whole edifice of the prosecution case falls. The prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court, has failed to establish that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. The Trial Court, despite recording in its proceedings that the date of birth certificate…was found to be forged, manifestly erred in convicting the appellant relying on the same very certificate,” it observed.

The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the convict, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. He claimed that his physical relationship with the prosecutrix was consensual.

The State, on the other hand, claimed that since the victim was a minor, her consent was immaterial.

In his appeal, the convict claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the exact date of birth of the victim.

The High Court noted that the birth certificate produced at the time of the victim's admission in school was testified by the MCD officer to be forged “as no such record existed in the MCD records.”

It observed, “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. 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  observed.

Even otherwise, the Court noted that the victim had at no place claimed that rape was committed, rather she maintained that the physical relations established were consensual.

As such, it set aside the conviction.

Appearance: Mr. Sharan Mehta, Advocate for Appellant; Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State Dr. M.P. Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for victim.

Case title: Arjun v. State

Case no.: CRL.A. 1004/2018

Click here to read order