Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges

"Since PW1 was a minor at the time of the offence, her consent is immaterial. Therefore, the offence of rape as defined under Section 375 is certainly made out," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 4, 2026, held that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant in cases of sexual assault, while simultaneously setting aside a conviction for kidnapping due to lack of evidence regarding enticement.

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that even if a victim joins an accused voluntarily, the charge of rape stands if the victim is below the age of consent. The Court emphasized that statutory age determination through birth certificates takes precedence over biological markers like menarche.

The case originated from an incident in January 2014, where the appellant, Suhail, was accused of kidnapping a 16-year-old girl and committing penetrative sexual assault in Delhi and Rampur. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged this conviction, arguing that the victim was a consenting adult and that her age had not been conclusively established.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution had conclusively established that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. The court was also called upon to determine whether the charges of kidnapping and abduction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC could be sustained when the victim’s own testimony suggested voluntary participation. Furthermore, the court examined the legal weight of an accused’s admission of sexual intercourse in a Section 313 CrPC statement.

Evidence Of Voluntary Departure Negates Kidnapping Charges

The Court meticulously examined the testimony of the victim (PW1), noting significant inconsistencies regarding how she ended up with the accused. Justice Sudha observed that the victim categorically admitted during cross-examination that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused after being beaten by her brother. The Court found that she had reached out to the accused out of desperation and joined him without any immediate threat or pressure.

"The prosecution case of abduction, kidnapping, threatening or inducing etc. is quite doubtful," the Court noted while highlighting that the girl had freely moved between various locations. Because the evidence suggested the victim left her lawful guardianship of her own accord rather than being enticed or forced, the bench concluded that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.

Birth Certificate Prevails Over Biological Maturity Tests For Age Determination

The appellant had contended that the victim reached menarche in 2007, suggesting she would have been an adult by the time of the 2014 incident. However, the High Court rejected this biological estimation, relying instead on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court held that when a birth certificate from a municipal authority is available, it carries the highest evidentiary value for age determination.

"The onset of menarche varies significantly from person to person and depends upon several biological and environmental factors," the bench observed. It ruled that such biological milestones cannot be treated as reliable or legally recognized methods for age determination when documentary evidence is present. Based on the birth certificate issued by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, the Court confirmed the victim was 15 years and 6 months old at the time of the offence.

Minor's Consent Is Irrelevant To Offence Of Rape

Addressing the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the Court clarified that once the victim's minority is established, the issue of consent becomes moot. While the victim's testimony regarding the "forcible" nature of the act was inconsistent, the fact that sexual intercourse occurred was supported by both the victim’s testimony and the medical evidence. The Court reiterated that a girl under the age of 18 cannot give legal consent for sexual intercourse.

"As stated by the accused, it appears to have been certainly a consensual one but since PW1 was a minor at the time of the offence, her consent is immaterial," the judgment read. The Court found that the repeated nature of the acts satisfied the requirements of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which deals with committing rape repeatedly on the same woman.

Effect Of Accused’s Admission In Section 313 Statement

The appellant argued that the conviction could not be based on his statement under Section 313 CrPC, where he admitted to consensual sex. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam, held that while such answers cannot be the sole basis of conviction, they can be read along with other evidence on record. In this case, the accused’s admission of physical relations corroborated the victim's testimony, even if he disputed the lack of consent.

"The accused was clearly put to notice regarding the age of the victim and the nature of the allegations arising from her minority," the Court stated. The bench dismissed the defense's claim of prejudice, noting that the charges under the POCSO Act inherently alerted the accused to the importance of the victim's age. Consequently, the conviction for the sexual offence was maintained while the kidnapping charges were dropped.

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. However, it confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and the corresponding 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The Court reaffirmed that the legal protection afforded to minors against sexual exploitation remains absolute, regardless of the victim's purported voluntary participation.

Date of Decision: 04 May 2026