Discrepancy in Age Goes to the Root of Consent — Bail Cannot Be Denied When Minority is in Doubt: Rajasthan High Court on POCSO and Age Conflict

The Rajasthan High Court in a significant decision dealing with the evidentiary value of age records in sexual offences involving minors, allowed bail to an accused charged under stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act. In Rafiq S/o Rehman v. State of Rajasthan, Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that when the age of the prosecutrix is seriously disputed, it "creates a legal grey area around the validity of consent", and therefore, the benefit of such inconsistency must go to the accused at the stage of bail.

The Court underlined that even in cases involving sexual offences against minors, "where documentary evidence on age yields contradictory results, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the principles of benefit of doubt and due process."

“Consent May Be Factually Present, But Its Legal Sanctity Depends on Age — Which Is Now in Serious Dispute”: Court’s Finding on the Core of POCSO Allegation

The petitioner, Rafiq, had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 93/2025 lodged at P.S. Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West, on allegations of abduction and forced marriage of a minor girl, with subsequent charges of sexual assault and offences under the SC/ST Act. According to the complainant — the mother of the prosecutrix — the accused had lured the girl into a relationship and fabricated documents to validate a fraudulent marriage, while the girl was allegedly still a minor.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of CrPC), seeking regular bail. His counsel submitted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied him and even made categorical statements under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, where she stated that she went with the petitioner willingly and became pregnant as a result of their consensual relationship.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the victim was a minor and, “once minority is established, consent is rendered legally meaningless under the POCSO framework.” It placed reliance on the school record showing her date of birth as 26.04.2008, proving that she was under 18 at the time of the incident.

“When Two Authentic Documents Give Two Different Birthdates, the Court Cannot Shut Its Eyes — Discrepancy Must Be Viewed in Favour of the Accused”: Court Relies on Supreme Court’s Guidelines on Age Determination

The Court carefully examined two official records produced during the proceedings. While the school mark-sheets from Class I to VII consistently showed the date of birth as 26.04.2008, the NIOS Secondary Certificate, relied on by the accused, recorded the date of birth as 01.01.2007 — leading to a discrepancy of over 15 months.

The High Court invoked the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra (2013), Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2010, where it was held:

“In the light of the statutory rule under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, the procedure to be followed in determining the age of a juvenile — or a victim — must begin with the matriculation certificate, if available, followed by the school certificate from the first attended school, and lastly by municipal birth certificate or medical opinion.”

Following the same, the Court acknowledged that both parties had placed equally valid documents — one being a secondary board certificate and the other a consistent record from earlier schooling years. Yet, at this preliminary stage, the Court held:

“Such a discrepancy in the record with respect to the age of the victim must, at this stage, enure to the benefit of the accused.”

The Court also cited State of MP v. Anoop Singh (2015), reiterating that medical evidence such as ossification tests should be considered only when primary documentary evidence is unavailable, and in cases of age disputes, “if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.”

In support, reference was made to a recent decision of a coordinate bench in Tanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 1993 (decided on 01.07.2024), where the Court had held:

“It is a well-settled law that in case of possibility of two views, the view beneficial to the accused is to be accepted.”

“The Girl’s Own Statement Shows No Force Was Used — When Minority Itself is Disputed, Consent Cannot Be Dismissed Outright”: High Court Cautions Against Premature Conclusions

The Court placed emphasis on the prosecutrix’s statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, wherein she clearly stated that she left her home voluntarily and was not coerced or abducted. The Court acknowledged that these statements cannot be wholly brushed aside, particularly when the legal conclusion about her capacity to consent depends entirely on resolving her age — which remained unresolved due to conflicting records.

In this light, the Court held:

“Even if consensual, the legal validity of such consent depends on whether she was a minor — and as her age is in serious dispute, such consent cannot be dismissed outright at this stage.”

Court Grants Bail After Noting Prolonged Custody, No Risk of Evidence Tampering, and Delayed Trial

The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since his arrest and that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Importantly, there was no material to suggest that the accused would influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, if released on bail.

Therefore, exercising its discretion, the Court directed:

“The accused–petitioner shall be released on bail... upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties of ₹25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court... without commenting on the merits of the case.”

This judgment underscores a vital constitutional and criminal law principle — that “in cases where the foundational facts such as the age of the prosecutrix are disputed and supported by conflicting documents, the presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial demand that the benefit of such uncertainty must go to the accused, especially at the bail stage.”

In the realm of sexual offence litigation, where statutory presumptions are heavy against the accused under POCSO, this decision reaffirms that judicial discretion must remain sensitive to evidentiary ambiguities, particularly when the distinction between lawful and unlawful consent turns on a disputed birthdate.

Date of Decision: 6 November 2025