Introduction:

In a crucial ruling, the Delhi High Court in Arjun v. State, CRL.A. 1004/2018 revisited the conviction of a man accused of raping a minor and set aside the trial court’s judgment after finding that the prosecution’s case was built on a forged birth certificate. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, delivering the verdict, held that the trial court had “manifestly erred in convicting the appellant,” despite having recorded that the victim’s date of birth certificate produced by her mother to prove minority was fabricated. The bench noted that no record of the prosecutrix’s birth was found in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) register for 1996, the year she was claimed to have been born. The appellant, Arjun, had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, but he argued that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecution had failed to establish the victim’s minority. On the other hand, the State contended that consent was immaterial because the victim was underage. After carefully scrutinising the records, the Court concluded that the entire case of statutory rape collapsed, since the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was indeed a minor, and additionally observed that the prosecutrix herself had not alleged rape but admitted the relationship was consensual.

Arguments of the Appellant:

The appellant, Arjun, challenged his conviction before the Delhi High Court primarily on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. He submitted that the entire case rested on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix’s mother and the school admission record, both of which were based on a birth certificate that was found to be forged. According to him, the MCD register did not contain any record of the victim’s birth in 1996, contradicting the date of birth claimed as 16.10.1995. He further emphasised that no scientific test, such as bone ossification, had been conducted to establish her age, thereby making the prosecution’s claim unsustainable. Arjun also asserted that his relationship with the prosecutrix was consensual, and the victim herself had admitted in her statements that no rape was committed. He argued that if the alleged sexual relationship was consensual and the prosecutrix was not a minor, there was no basis for convicting him under the charge of rape. His counsel, Mr. Sharan Mehta, highlighted that the trial court had committed a grave error by relying on the forged certificate despite acknowledging its falsity, and urged that his conviction be set aside.

Arguments of the State:

The prosecution, represented by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the appeal. It argued that since the victim was a minor, her consent was irrelevant under the law, and any physical relationship amounted to statutory rape. The State contended that the date of birth claimed by the prosecutrix, 16.10.1995, was sufficient to demonstrate her minority, especially when corroborated by her mother’s testimony and the school admission records. The State urged that minor inconsistencies in proving the exact age should not allow the accused to escape liability, particularly in offences against women and children where societal interests are at stake. The prosecution also submitted that the Court should rely on the victim’s claim of age, as well as her mother’s account, rather than dismissing them due to documentary discrepancies. While conceding that the birth certificate produced by the mother had been found forged, the State attempted to argue that the victim’s own statement of being underage was sufficient to establish the element of minority. It sought to uphold the conviction, stressing that public policy and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) principles demanded strict liability in cases of sexual offences involving children.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, after carefully examining the evidence, found that the trial court had committed a manifest error in convicting the appellant. The High Court observed that the prosecution’s case entirely hinged on the claim that the prosecutrix was a minor, but the only documentary evidence produced to establish her date of birth—a birth certificate provided by her mother—was forged. The Court relied on the MCD’s register of births from 1996, which categorically showed that no such birth record existed for the prosecutrix. Once the date of birth certificate was discredited, the prosecution had no credible evidence to establish minority.

The Court further noted that the school admission form, which recorded the date of birth, was based solely on the same forged certificate provided by the victim’s mother, thereby lacking any independent evidentiary value. It emphasised that except for the oral assertion of the prosecutrix claiming her birth date as 16.10.1995, no corroborative evidence was furnished. Importantly, no medical or ossification test had been carried out to assess her age. Justice Ohri held that the fulcrum of the prosecution’s case collapsed once the certificate was disproved, rendering the finding of minority baseless.

Equally significant was the Court’s observation that the prosecutrix herself had not alleged rape. In her statements, she maintained that the physical relationship was consensual. This admission, combined with the failure to establish her minority, meant that the charge of statutory rape could not be sustained. The Court held that once the claim of minority was discarded, consensual relations between adults could not be criminalised under the charge of rape.

In strong words, the bench remarked that “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.” The High Court reiterated that in criminal law, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and any serious charge such as rape must be supported by clear, cogent, and credible evidence. It set aside the conviction and sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the trial court.

By doing so, the Delhi High Court reinforced the principle that convictions cannot rest on forged or unreliable documents, and that in sexual offence cases, while strict protection of minors is necessary, the prosecution must still prove minority beyond reasonable doubt. This judgment also underscores the Court’s insistence on distinguishing between genuine cases of child sexual offences and consensual adult relationships wrongly prosecuted due to fabricated evidence.