RAJU v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI), 2025
It highlights the importance of corroborating medical evidence (bone age test) when documentary evidence is doubtful.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
15 October 2025
Judges
Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The accused was convicted for raping a 14-year-old minor girl under the IPC and POCSO Act.
-
The convict challenged the conviction and the life sentence, arguing that the victim’s age was not conclusively proven.
-
The school record indicating the victim's age was disbelieved by the trial court.
-
The bone age ossification test report suggested the victim’s age as 17-18 years.
-
The convict claimed the victim was major at the time of the offence, thus not liable under POCSO.
Issues
-
Whether the document of higher preference for age determination under the JJ Act should be treated as absolute truth even if it is shaky or falsified?
-
Whether the victim was a minor or major at the time of the offence?
-
Whether the conviction under the POCSO Act was justified based on the evidence presented?
Judgement
-
The Delhi High Court ruled that the document with higher preference for age under the JJ Act (such as school record or birth certificate) is not to be taken as gospel truth if found shaky, suspicious, or falsified.
-
The court can discard such documents if the contents are falsified or unconvincing.
-
The preferred order for documents to determine age is: school record, birth certificate, and bone age ossification test.
-
The school record indicating the victim was only 10 years old at the time of incident did not match the FIR.
-
Since the trial court disbelieved the school record, it should have relied on the bone age ossification report rather than oral testimonies.
-
The victim’s testimony about abduction and force was found not credible or convincing.
-
The accused’s act of taking her in public transport during daylight was deemed inconsistent with the claim of forceful abduction.
-
An NGO-recorded statement revealed the victim knew the accused for a year and had a consensual relationship with him.
-
The court concluded it was likely a case of elopement and consensual relationship, not rape or abduction.
-
Hence, it was unsafe to uphold conviction based solely on victim’s testimony, which lacked confidence.
Held
-
The conviction was quashed.
-
The accused was acquitted of all charges.
-
Directed immediate release if not required otherwise.
Analysis
-
The judgment emphasizes that documents preferred for age determination must be reliable and unimpeachable.
-
The Courts can and should discard evidence if found falsified or inconsistent.
-
It highlights the importance of corroborating medical evidence (bone age test) when documentary evidence is doubtful.
-
The ruling underscores the need for credible, consistent testimony in sensitive cases like sexual offences.
-
Shows judicial caution in cases where the evidence points to possible consensual relationships rather than criminal acts.