Delhi High Court Overturns Rape Conviction Due to Unproven Age of Prosecutrix

Court Acquits Udaipal, Citing Lack of Conclusive Evidence on Age of Consent in Alleged Rape Case

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction of Udaipal, accused of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), due to the prosecution's failure to conclusively establish the prosecutrix's age below the age of consent at the time of the alleged offense. The judgment was delivered by Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., on October 27, 2025.

The case stemmed from an incident on November 11, 2005, when the prosecutrix, then a minor girl, went missing from her home. Subsequently, a missing report was filed, and later an FIR was registered against Udaipal, who was apprehended and the prosecutrix recovered from his residence in Faridabad, Haryana. The prosecutrix claimed to have gone willingly with Udaipal, married him, and lived with him as his wife. The prosecution had relied on school records to assert that the prosecutrix was below the age of consent, with her date of birth recorded as April 15, 1994, making her 11 years and 7 months old at the time.

However, the High Court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the prosecutrix's age. The school records, presented as proof, were based on an affidavit filed by Mahipal, the prosecutrix's maternal uncle, without any supporting documentation. Neither the original school admission register nor the affidavit was produced before the court. Furthermore, the prosecutrix herself provided varying accounts of her age, stating in court that her date of birth was April 5, 1988, making her above the age of consent.

In light of these discrepancies and the absence of an ossification test, which could have scientifically determined her age, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the prosecutrix's age beyond reasonable doubt. Citing judgments from the Supreme Court, the court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence to establish age in cases involving statutory age of consent.

The High Court, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to Udaipal, acquitting him of all charges and setting aside the earlier conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court. This ruling underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in cases where age is a critical factor in determining consent and legality of sexual relations.

Bottom Line:

Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside due to failure of prosecution to conclusively prove the prosecutrix's age below the age of consent at the time of the alleged offence.

Statutory provision(s): Section 376 IPC, Section 374 CrPC, Section 363 IPC, Section 366 IPC, Section 313 CrPC, Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

UDAI Pal v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2799530