Certificate Issued By School Without Supporting Proof Not Enough Evidence To Determine Kidnapping Victim's Age: Rajasthan High Court

Upholding an order acquitting a man accused of kidnapping a girl, the Rajasthan High Court refused to accept the certificate issued by the girl's school as proof of age in absence of any document or evidence of school staff or register admission form or mark sheet based on which such the certificate was issued.

The court said that certificate issued by a school can only be based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school which were made based on the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student, neither of which were on record. 

The Court was hearing two revision petitions (one by alleged victim's father and the other by the State) against the accused's acquittal in an alleged case of rape and kidnapping the petitioner's daughter with an intention to marry.

The accused was charged under Sections 363(Punishment for kidnapping), 366 (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc) and 376 (Punishment for rape) IPC.

Justice Farjand Ali observed that to convict the accused under section 363 IPC, two things are to be established beyond reasonable doubt, one that she was below the age of 18 years and other would be that she was taken away from her lawful guardianship without consent of the guardians

It said:

“Ostensibly, a certificate of the school can only be issued based on the entries made in scholar register maintained by the school and entries in scholar register are to be made on the basis of the entry mentioned in admission form filled by parents or guardian of the student…neither the admission form nor the scholar register or any mark-sheet has been brought on record nor any officer of the School has been examined to establish the above fact. As per section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the register maintained by a public school is a relevant fact and thus admissible for the evidence. A certificate, veracity of which is not known as to who issued it, cannot be made basis to determine the age of any incumbent. This Court is of the view that Exhibit P-9 cannot be made a basis for determining the age of victim and thus the learned trail court has rightly discarded it"

In the present case, the point of determination before the trial court was:

(a) whether the victim was a minor

(b) whether she was subjected to rape, and if yes, then what should be the punishment.

The respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court when the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner's daughter was a minor at the time of the offence since that was a pre-requisite to convict the accused for kidnapping.

The Court highlighted that to prove the age of the daughter, a certificate issued by the School, where the girl was studying–was tendered as evidence. The certificate was never produced before the investigating officer so that investigation could be done with regard to its genuineness.

The court also said that father had in his testimony said that the date of birth of his daughter was mentioned in the school at the instance of her mother, "putting a significant dent" in the prosecution's case because the prime witness who mentioned the date was not produced by the prosecution. 

"The prosecution has failed to produce any document or the evidence of the school staff, headmaster of the school or school register admission form, etc., based upon which Exhibit P-9 was issued further casting suspicion over the genuineness of the document," the court said. 

Hence, it was held that the certificate could not be made a basis to determine the age of the daughter.

Furthermore, in relation to the ossification test report prepared by a radiologist or medical jurist at a hospital as per which the daughter's age was between 15 to 17 years, the Court observed it was settled that there would always be a variation of two years in the estimation of age reached based on an ossification test.

“A radiologist or medical jurist based on his experience and the formula given in the test of medical jurisprudence makes an idea regarding the estimate age of a person, however, it always remains an estimate. It is an opinion of a radiologist or a medical jurist and it's nature is always opinionative, so no definite age can be given by a medical officer in this case it was given.”

With respect to allegation of rape the high court said that trial court had rightly appreciated evidence, adding that the alleged victim's statement given during trial made it abundantly clear that the victim was all over a consenting party and she was neither coxed nor forced.

In this background, it was held that no clinching evidence was put on record to establish that the daughter was in fact a minor at the time of the alleged offence.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Raisuddin v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260

Click Here To Read/Download Order