Case at a Glance
A Special POCSO Court in Banaskantha acquitted an accused of kidnapping and rape charges after finding that the prosecution had not proved the girl was a minor. The complainant appealed, relying on a gram panchayat birth register entry and birth certificate. The Gujarat High Court, following the Supreme Court in Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, (2025) 07 SC CK 0229, held that a school certificate or birth record alone does not prove age, and that the source of the entry must be proved; here, the register did not show who supplied the date of birth. Finding the trial court’s appreciation of evidence free of perversity, it dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
The accused was tried by the Second Additional Sessions Judge and Special (POCSO) Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 29 of 2024, for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that he had taken the girl from her home on the night of 7 June 2024 to a house on the outskirts of a nearby village, and the FIR was lodged the same day at Amirgadh Police Station. Twelve witnesses were examined and 28 exhibits relied on.
To prove age, the Talati-cum-Mantri of the gram panchayat produced the birth register and a copy of the birth certificate. But he admitted that no birth was registered in his presence; no hospital document or written application from the informant was produced; the register did not show who supplied the date of birth; and the father’s cross-examination undermined the entry. On 6 September 2025 the trial court held that minority was not proved, did not accept the allegation of forcible taking and assault in light of the girl’s conduct, and acquitted the accused. The complainant appealed under Section 413 of the BNSS.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does an entry in a birth register, by itself, prove that a victim was a minor for the purposes of the POCSO Act when the source of the recorded date of birth is not established?
Admissibility is not the same as proof
Writing for the Bench, Justice R.T. Vachhani first noted the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, relying on Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka, (2026) 01 SC CK 1876: interference is warranted only “In exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse”. On age, the Court followed Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, which itself draws on Narbada Devi Gupta v. Narendrakumar Jaiswal, (2003) 11 SC CK 0038, Biradmal Singhvi v. Anandmal Purohit, (1988) 08 SC CK 0057 and State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekh Ram, holding that “a school certificate or birth record, alone does not prove a victim’s age” and that “admissibility is distinct from probative value”.
A public register entry may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but its weight depends on proof of its authenticity and of the source of the information, and merely exhibiting a document “does not amount to proof of its contents”. Since the prosecution had not proved who supplied the date of birth, minority was not established. Treating the girl as an adult, and considering her conduct as noted by the trial court, the Bench found her version of confinement and forcible assault “is not believable and does not inspire confidence”, and held that “The findings of the acquittal are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference by us.”
What the Court Actually Held
- A school certificate or birth record alone does not prove a victim’s age; the source of the entry must be proved.
- Admissibility of a public register entry under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is distinct from its probative value, and exhibiting a document does not prove its contents.
- The prosecution failed to prove the source of the date of birth in the birth register and therefore failed to prove minority on the date of the incident.
- The trial court’s acquittal was not perverse, and the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Proof of age decides whether the POCSO Act applies at all, and this ruling shows how strictly courts may test birth register entries.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s decision in Birka Shiva on the probative value of school and birth records.
- It reiterates the narrow scope of appeals against acquittal, even when filed by the complainant under Section 413 BNSS.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Prosecutors and Complainants
- Prove the source of the date of birth: who reported the birth, when, and on what basis.
- Produce supporting records such as hospital documents or the written application made for registration.
- Examine the official who made or maintains the entry on how it was recorded.
For Defence Counsel
- Test age documents for the source of information, not just their admissibility.
- Rely on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana and this ruling where the entry’s informant is unknown.
- In acquittal appeals, emphasise the perversity threshold in Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka.
Key Takeaways
- A birth record alone does not prove age; its source must be proved.
- Admissibility and probative value are distinct.
- Without proof of minority, the case was assessed as one involving an adult.
- The acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed at admission.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a birth certificate not proof of age in POCSO cases?
It is admissible, but this judgment, following Birka Shiva, says a school certificate or birth record alone does not prove age. Its weight depends on proving who supplied the information and how the entry was made.
Why was the birth register doubted here?
The official admitted no birth was registered in his presence, the register did not show who supplied the date of birth, no hospital record or application was produced, and the father’s cross-examination undermined the entry.
Who filed the appeal?
The original complainant filed the appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the BNSS. The State, through the APP, supported the acquittal, and the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Conclusion
The ruling underlines that in POCSO prosecutions, age is a fact to be proved like any other. A register entry with no known informant may be admissible, but it may carry little weight when tested in cross-examination.
Practical takeaway: Investigators and prosecutors should collect and prove the source of any date-of-birth entry early, through hospital records, registration applications and the evidence of the reporting person, rather than relying on a certificate alone.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com