The Delhi High Court has held that in cases relating to incidents prior to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, the prosecution must conclusively establish that the victim was below 16 years of age to sustain a conviction for rape.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while acquitting a man convicted of raping an 11-year-old girl in 2005, emphasizing that the age of consent at that time was 16 years—not 18 years as amended in 2013. “It is important to remember that the alleged offence was committed in 2005, when the age of consent under Section 375 IPC was 16 years. Therefore, for conviction, the prosecution had to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age,” the Court said.

The 2013 amendment had raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, making sexual intercourse with anyone below 18 automatically an offence.

In the present case (Udai Pal v. State), the appellant had challenged his conviction and five-year sentence for rape. His sentence had been suspended in 2008 during the pendency of the appeal filed in 2007. Allowing the appeal, Justice Sharma noted that both the accused and the prosecutrix admitted to having lived together as husband and wife after solemnizing marriage and engaging in consensual sexual relations.

The Court further pointed out that neither the school’s admission register nor the supporting affidavit regarding the prosecutrix’s age were produced during trial. Moreover, the medical report (MLC) recorded her age as 14 years contradicting the prosecution’s claim that she was only 11 years and 7 months old.

Observing that the investigating officer failed to conduct proper inquiries or order an ossification test, the Court found that the prosecution’s case relied solely on an unreliable school certificate issued by the headmistress.

“Given that the offence took place in 2005, when the age of consent was 16 years, and in the absence of credible proof that the prosecutrix was below that age—especially when she herself claimed to be older—this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove her age beyond reasonable doubt,” Justice Sharma ruled.

Consequently, the Court held that the conviction under Section 376 IPC could not be sustained. “The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges,” the judgment concluded.