Quick Read
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 366 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age when the alleged incident occurred.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the trial court had wrongly relied on physical features such as the absence of third molars and the presence of axillary and pubic hair to independently conclude that the prosecutrix was a minor. The High Court observed that when the examining doctor and radiologist had assessed her age at around 18 years, the trial court could not substitute its own assessment for medical expert opinion.
The Court also found that an alleged school marksheet showing the prosecutrix’s date of birth was not properly proved or even part of the trial court record. It consequently held that the prosecution had failed to establish her minority beyond the required standard of proof.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered in 2011 after the complainant alleged that the appellant, Bhaiya Lal Raidas, had enticed away his daughter, who was claimed to be a minor.
The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. He was, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 363 and 376 IPC.
The prosecution relied upon the alleged age of the prosecutrix to establish the offence. Her medico-legal examination was conducted in May 2011.
The radiologist assessed her age at approximately 18 years, with a possible variation of six months either way. The doctor who examined her stated that she could be around 20 years old. Despite this medical evidence, the trial court independently assessed her age as between 14 and 17 years.
How Did The Trial Court Determine Her Age?
The trial court relied on the physical characteristics recorded during the medical examination.
It noted that the prosecutrix had 14 teeth on each side and that the medico-legal report recorded the presence of axillary and pubic hair. The trial court relied on its understanding that these features developed at particular stages of adolescence.
It also considered the absence of third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth, and reasoned that their emergence generally occurred around the age of 17. On this basis, the trial court concluded that the prosecutrix was below 18 years.
The High Court found this approach problematic because the trial court had effectively made its own medical assessment instead of properly considering the opinions of the medical professionals who had examined the prosecutrix.
Could The Trial Court Override Medical Expert Opinion?
The High Court held that it could not do so in the circumstances of the case. The examining doctor had assessed the prosecutrix’s age at around 20 years, while the radiologist had estimated it at around 18 years. Despite these opinions, the trial court independently concluded that she was between 14 and 17 years old.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the trial court had effectively “acted as a super-specialist” by imposing its own assessment over the opinions of the doctor and radiologist.
The High Court stressed that a court is required to evaluate expert evidence rather than replace the expertise of medical professionals with its own assumptions about medical or physiological development.
Did The Absence Of Wisdom Teeth Prove That She Was A Minor?
The High Court rejected that reasoning. It held that the emergence of third molars is not essential for determining whether a person has attained 18 years of age. Their absence therefore could not by itself establish that the prosecutrix was below 18. The Court also rejected the trial court’s reliance on the presence of axillary and pubic hair.
The medico-legal report merely recorded their presence. It did not state that the hair was not fully developed. The High Court therefore held that the mere recording of their presence could not support an inference about the prosecutrix’s age in the manner adopted by the trial court.
What About The School Marksheet?
The trial court had also relied on an alleged Class VIII marksheet which purportedly recorded the prosecutrix’s date of birth as 25 September 1993. The High Court found a fundamental evidentiary problem with this document.
The alleged marksheet was not available on the trial court record. It had no document number or exhibit mark and was not mentioned in the index of the record. The High Court therefore held that the trial court could not have relied upon a document that was not part of the record.
The Court further noted that the document had not been properly proved by the Principal, Headmaster or another competent official from the school that allegedly issued it.
Simply producing a document during examination-in-chief was not sufficient to establish its contents without following the procedure required for bringing the document on record and proving it.
What Did The Medical Evidence Show?
The High Court noted that the medical evidence placed the prosecutrix’s age at approximately 18 years. The Court also referred to Supreme Court decisions recognising that radiological age estimation carries a margin of error. Applying the relevant margin in the circumstances, the Court observed that the medical assessment could place the prosecutrix’s age even higher than 18.
Therefore, the medical evidence could not safely establish that she was a minor on the date of the incident. The High Court consequently held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential fact of minority.
What Did The Court Consider About Her Statements?
The High Court also examined the statements made by the prosecutrix at different stages of the proceedings.
In her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she had stated that she had gone with the appellant of her own free will and had not made allegations of force against him. The Court noted that she did not disown these earlier statements during her testimony before the trial court.
Although she subsequently alleged that the appellant had made her inhale a substance that caused her to become unconscious, the High Court found this version difficult to accept in light of the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence.
The Court also considered the fact that she remained with the appellant for approximately seven months without alleging the use of force during that period. These circumstances were relevant to the Court’s assessment of the prosecution evidence concerning the alleged offence under Section 366 IPC.
Why Was The Conviction Under Section 366 IPC Set Aside?
Section 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage or for illicit intercourse. The High Court found that the trial court had not properly considered several material aspects of the evidence before convicting the appellant.
Most importantly, the prosecution had failed to establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time. The trial court’s conclusion regarding her age was based partly on an improperly relied-upon document and partly on its own assessment of physical characteristics despite the available medical opinions.
The High Court also found that the prosecutrix’s earlier statements and the surrounding circumstances had not been adequately considered by the trial court. The Court therefore concluded that the conviction under Section 366 IPC could not be sustained.
What Did The High Court Ultimately Decide?
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the trial court’s judgment dated 8 February 2013 convicting Bhaiya Lal Raidas under Section 366 IPC.
The appellant was consequently acquitted of the offence. The judgment reinforces that where the prosecution relies upon the alleged minority of a person, that fact has to be established through legally admissible and reliable evidence. A court cannot fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence by independently making medical or scientific conclusions that are not supported by the expert evidence on record.
Case: Bhaiya Lal Raidas v. State of U.P.
