School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction

"Date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined."

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment dated July 2, 2026, held that a school register entry regarding a victim's age cannot be treated as clinching evidence of minority unless the underlying material or the person who provided the information is examined. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh observed that in the absence of a birth certificate or the admission form, the court cannot determine guilt based on mere estimations of age.

The appellant was convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, in March 2021 for allegedly kidnapping and raping a minor girl in 2016. The Trial Court had sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with convictions under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC. The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident and that the relationship was consensual.

The primary question before the court was whether the entry in a school scholar register is sufficient to prove the minority of a victim under the POCSO Act without corroborating evidence. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of a statement given by a hostile witness who admitted to marrying the accused of her own volition.

Court Highlights Burden Of Proof Regarding Minority

The Court noted that in criminal appeals involving the POCSO Act, the burden of proving that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident lies squarely on the prosecution. Referring to the three-judge Bench decision in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 9 SCR 224, the bench reiterated that the burden of proving a specific age status is upon the party claiming it.

Inadmissibility Of Uncorroborated School Records

The bench emphasized that while an entry in a school register is relevant under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, it does not possess inherent probative value if the source of the information is unknown. The Court relied on Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit 1988 Supp SCC 604, which held that an entry in the scholar's register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by parents or a person having special knowledge.

"The entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded."

Application Of Judicial Precedents On Age Determination

The Court extensively cited Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283, noting that parents often furnish incorrect dates of birth to school authorities to secure admissions. It observed that for determining age, the best evidence is that of the parents, provided it is supported by unimpeccable documents. In the present case, the teacher (PW-12) failed to produce the original admission form or any birth certificate that formed the basis of the school entry.

Determination Of Guilt Cannot Be Based On Estimations

Relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Birka Shiva Vs. State of Telangana [SLP (Crl.) 1445/2025], the High Court noted that courts cannot make a determination of guilt in "thin air" based on estimations. It found that the prosecution failed to provide clinching evidence to prove the victim was below 18 on the date of the offence, especially when the mother of the victim (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that the girl was approximately 18-19 years old.

"Courts of law cannot make a determination of guilt in thin air, based on estimations... the proof submitted by the prosecution in the form of birth certificate issued by the school was not sufficient."

Consensual Relationship Between Adults Not A Crime

Regarding the charges of rape, the Court observed that the medical evidence provided by Dr. Nidhi Khare (PW-9) did not support a case of recent intercourse and showed an "old torn" hymen. Furthermore, the prosecutrix herself, in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, admitted to marrying the accused of her own volition. Though she later claimed she was under fear, the Court held that a courtroom is a neutral place and contradictory statements make the prosecution's version highly doubtful.

Court Rejects Theory Of Fear In Judicial Proceedings

The Bench remarked that it cannot accept the legal preposition that a person remains under the fear of the accused even while deposing before a Judicial Magistrate. It held that if the prosecution fails to prove the victim was a minor, any physical relation developed between the parties must be viewed as a consensual relationship between two adults, which does not constitute a criminal offence under the IPC or POCSO Act.

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court's judgment could not be sustained due to the failure to prove the victim's minority and the evidence of consent. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the Court directed the immediate release of the appellant.

Date of Decision: July 2, 2026