'Janam Patri' And Vaccination Card Not Valid Proof Of Date Of Birth In POCSO Cases: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal

" Janam Patri cannot be considered as proof of date of birth, and therefore the age, if any, recorded in the school record on the basis of Janam Patri, also cannot be considered as proof of age of the prosecutrix." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a 'Janam Patri' (horoscope) or a vaccination card cannot be considered valid proof of date of birth to establish minority under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that a rape conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a prosecutrix if her narrative is marred by material inconsistencies and fails to inspire the confidence required of a witness of "sterling quality."

The State had appealed against a July 2019 trial court judgment that acquitted the respondent of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and rape charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that in January 2013, the respondent criminally intimidated the alleged 16-year-old minor over the phone, coercing her to travel from Delhi to Amritsar, where she was allegedly confined and repeatedly subjected to sexual assault.

The primary question before the court was whether documents like a Janam Patri and a vaccination card could legally establish the minority of the prosecutrix to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficiently reliable to warrant reversing a trial court's order of acquittal under the appellate standards of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench first examined the prosecution's foundational claim regarding the age of the prosecutrix to justify the invocation of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The court noted that the municipal authorities had lost the original birth register, rendering the birth certificate unproved. Furthermore, the parents of the prosecutrix were unable to state her date of birth during cross-examination. Rejecting the prosecution's attempt to rely on a 'Janam Patri' and a 'Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card' (vaccination card), the court held that these documents hold no evidentiary value for proving age, meaning the prosecution conclusively failed to prove the victim was a minor.

"Admittedly, Janam Patri cannot be considered as proof of date of birth, and therefore the age, if any, recorded in the school record on the basis of Janam Patri, also cannot be considered as proof of age of the prosecutrix."

Discussing the evidentiary standard for sexual offences under Sections 376 and 366 of the IPC, the court reiterated the settled legal position that while a conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of a rape survivor without requiring corroboration, such testimony must be of "sterling quality." The bench observed that the prosecutrix's narrative—claiming she travelled alone by bus from Delhi to Amritsar under mere telephonic threats from a man she had never physically met—defied logic. The court highlighted her admission that she made no effort to escape despite visiting public places like the Golden Temple, raised no alarm with co-passengers or relatives, and lacked any fresh injuries on her medico-legal certificate (MLC). Crucially, the bench pointed out the impossibility of her claims, as she admitted in cross-examination to working at a Delhi factory and receiving her full salary for the entire month of January 2013, the exact period she was allegedly kidnapped and confined in Punjab.

"While staying at Amritsar, she did not reach out for help or raise hue and cry and did not try to run away from the house of the respondent."

> "Thus, it may be seen that the investigation has been conducted in a slip-shod manner, which makes the prosecution case doubtful, the benefit of which goes to the appellant."

The court severely criticized the police for their slip-shod handling of electronic evidence and witness testimonies. The investigating officers failed to produce the Customer Application Form for the mobile number allegedly used to trace the prosecutrix, did not examine the telecom service provider, and failed to legally prove the Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location charts. Furthermore, the bench noted glaring contradictions among prosecution witnesses—including the victim's parents and the investigating officer—regarding the exact place and manner of the respondent's arrest.

"Prosecution neither proved the Customer Application Form nor examined the service provider to confirm that mobile No. 9781246116 was registered in the name of Ram Kumar. The CDR and the location chart have also not been duly proved on record."

Addressing the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the CrPC, the bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgments in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The court emphasized the doctrine of double presumption, noting that the foundational presumption of an accused's innocence is further solidified when a trial court delivers an order of acquittal. The bench ruled that an appellate court must not substitute its own view simply because an alternative conclusion is theoretically possible, restricting interference only to cases where the trial court's findings are manifestly illegal, perverse, or result in a grave miscarriage of justice.

"The accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court."

Ultimately, the High Court found that the view taken by the trial court was entirely plausible, reasonable, and based firmly on the evidentiary material on record. Dismissing the State's appeal, the bench affirmed the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of all charges and formally discharged his bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 25 March 2026