Is a school certificate alone enough to prove a girl’s age in a rape case?
The J&K and Ladakh Court ruled that an unverified school certificate, without evidence showing the basis of the recorded date of birth, cannot conclusively establish minority.
SRINAGAR: In a judgment dated April 24, 2026, Justice Sanjay Dhar of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside the conviction of a man who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for rape.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident and found that the relationship between the parties was consensual.
The case started in December 2018 when the father of the girl lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped. During the investigation, the girl was recovered and the police added the offence of rape. The prosecution claimed that she was below 18 years of age and that she had become pregnant because of her relationship with the accused.
During the trial, the prosecution relied on a school certificate showing the girl’s date of birth. Based on this document, the trial court concluded that she was a minor and convicted the accused for statutory rape, although he was acquitted of the kidnapping charge.
However, while hearing the appeal, the High Court found gaps in the evidence relating to the age of the prosecutrix. The teacher who produced the school records admitted that he did not know on what basis the date of birth had been entered in the school register. The Court also noted that neither the father nor the elder sister of the prosecutrix could state her exact date of birth.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that entries in school records may be admissible in evidence, but they cannot automatically be treated as conclusive proof of age unless the basis of those entries is established. Since the prosecution failed to produce any birth record or other reliable material supporting the date recorded in the school certificate, the Court held that the age of the prosecutrix had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court then examined the statements of the prosecutrix herself. It found that she had consistently stated that she voluntarily accompanied the accused and wanted to marry him. She admitted that she had gone with him of her own free will and had entered into a physical relationship with him voluntarily. The Court observed that the evidence clearly pointed towards a consensual relationship between two young persons.
After examining the entire record, the Court concluded that once the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, the foundation of the conviction for statutory rape collapsed. The Court held that the facts of the case showed a love affair that had developed into criminal litigation.
While discussing the background of the case, the Court remarked:
“It seems that because of adamant attitude of the family of the prosecutrix, the love affair between the two young persons culminated in a criminal prosecution against the appellant.”
The Court also referred to recent observations of the Supreme Court regarding consensual relationships involving young persons and the need to prevent injustice arising from a mechanical application of criminal law. Applying those principles, Justice Dhar noted that the prosecutrix had admitted entering into the relationship voluntarily and that the evidence did not support a conviction.
The Court further observed:
“Considering the closeness of age of the victim and the appellant and the fact that she had accompanied him out of her own accord because of her affection for him, putting the appellant behind the bars would be perversity of justice.”
Holding that the trial court had erred in relying upon an unverified school certificate to determine age, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the immediate release of the appellant from custody if he was not required in any other case.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Was Applied In This Case |
| Section 376 RPC | Punishes rape under the Ranbir Penal Code (J&K) | The appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 8 years. The conviction was later set aside by the High Court. |
| Section 363 RPC | Punishes kidnapping from lawful guardianship | The allegation was that the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix. The trial court acquitted him of this charge. |
| Section 109 RPC | Punishment for abetment | Initially invoked against persons alleged to have assisted the appellant. |
| Section 161 Cr.P.C. | Recording of witness statements during investigation | The prosecutrix’s statement was recorded by police during investigation. |
| Section 164A Cr.P.C. (J&K Code as mentioned in judgment) | Statement of victim before Magistrate during investigation | The prosecutrix stated before the Magistrate that she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant and that he had not forced himself upon her. |
| Section 342 J&K Cr.P.C. | Examination of accused after prosecution evidence | Statements of the accused and co-accused were recorded under this provision. |
| POCSO Act (discussed by Court) | Protection of Children from Sexual Offences | Not charged in the present case, but the Court referred to Supreme Court observations on misuse of POCSO in consensual teenage relationships. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Yawar Ahmad Bhagat v. UT of J&K Through Police Station Yaripora
- Case Number: CrlA(S) No. 03/2025
- Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
- Date of Judgment: 24 April 2026
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Zahid Hussain, Advocate, with Mr. Bhat Shafi, Mr. Zahid Afzal and Mr. Naveed Bukhtiyar, Advocates
- For Respondent: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, Government Advocate
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Consent matters, but facts matter even more. Every allegation must be tested against reliable evidence, not assumptions.
- Criminal law should protect victims, not punish people merely because a relationship later breaks down or faces family opposition.
- Age is a crucial ingredient in statutory offences and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a person’s liberty is taken away.
- Documents are only as strong as the evidence supporting them; courts cannot rely on records whose source and authenticity remain unverified.
- Justice requires looking at the complete story, because treating a consensual relationship as a serious crime without sufficient proof can lead to grave injustice.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.