Introduction:

In Raisuddin v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260), the Rajasthan High Court adjudicated two revision petitions challenging the acquittal of an accused in an alleged kidnapping and rape case. The FIR claimed that the accused had abducted the victim minor with an intent to marry and raped her. The trial court acquitted him because the prosecution failed to substantiate that the girl was under 18—the critical threshold for Section 363 IPC (kidnapping of a minor). The victim’s age had been purportedly supported by a school-issued certificate, but no underlying records or personnel were produced. Justice Farjand Ali upheld the acquittal and disallowed interim age evidence, stressing the necessity of authentic registry or admission record proof.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Victim’s Father & State):

The petitioners contended that the victim was a minor, citing Exhibit P‑9—a school certificate stating her age—and an ossification (bone) test estimating 15–17 years. They argued that both kidnapping and rape convictions hinged on proof of minor status. The school certificate was submitted to compensate for lack of official birth record, and the ossification test was relied upon to reinforce the minor threshold. They sought revision of the acquittal, asserting that the accused should instead be convicted under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC.

Arguments by the Defence (Accused & Trial Court):

The accused contested both age proof forms. The defence pointed out that the school certificate lacked foundational documents like the admission form, scholar register entries, mark sheets, or testimony from school authorities corroborating admissions records. The prosecution’s parent witness had disclosed that the date of birth entry reflected the mother’s statement, casting doubt on its authenticity. As for the ossification test, the defence emphasized its inherent two-year margin of error as per medical jurisprudence, which renders it unreliable for precise age determination.

Court’s Findings and Judgment:

Justice Farjand Ali meticulously examined Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, which accepts a school register maintained by a public school as admissible evidence—but not a standalone certificate. The court held that since the prosecution failed to produce the underlying admission form or scholar register, and did not call any school staff to testify in support of the certificate’s reliability, Exhibit P‑9 was inadmissible as proof of minor status. Without valid documentary foundation, the school certificate could not serve to establish the victim’s age as under 18.

Regarding the ossification test, the Court reiterated that such assessments are inherently approximate, with accepted variation of up to two years. In absence of corroborative evidence, a test estimate ranging from 15‑17 could not firmly establish minor age beyond reasonable doubt. The victim’s own testimony indicated the encounter was consensual, negating elements necessary for rape conviction if she were found to be adult. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden under Sections 363 and 376 IPC. Therefore, the acquittal by the trial court was correctly rendered, and both petitions were dismissed.