'Entire prosecution story concocted': SC sets aside conviction of youth in rape case
The Supreme Court on July 16, 2025, set aside the conviction of a young man accused of kidnapping his friend’s sister, unlawfully confining her, and repeatedly raping her over a period of time.
Court found the birth certificate produced by the prosecution remained uncorroborated and the absence of consent, sine qua non to prove the charge, was not met with evidence.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta did not find any evidence which could suggest that the appellant, Birka Shiva kidnapped the victim from lawful guardianship or confined her for approximately two months, against her volition in a house at Hyderabad or had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will or without her consent.
"Well, suffice it to say, courts of law cannot make a determination of guilt in thin air, based on estimations," the bench said.
Court held that the entire prosecution's story had been concocted for reasons best known to the prosecution.
Court also held that the proof submitted by the prosecution in the form of birth certificate issued by the school was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen/eighteen years of age, especially when it was not sufficiently corroborated.
"Therefore, it was neither safe nor fair to convict the appellant based on it, particularly in the context where the age of the victim was such a pivotal factor," the bench said.
An FIR was registered on August 8, 2012, by the mother of the victim with Police Station Godavarikhani – II Town, District Karimnagar, alleging that the appellant had lured and induced the victim and taken her away to some unknown place by taking the opportunity of her innocence.
On October 12, 2012, when the appellant sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident, he was admitted to the hospital at Karimnagar. At that time, the victim came to her mother and narrated the ordeal to her family.
The trial court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment for rape, five years for kidnapping and six months for wrongful confinement.
The high court, upon his appeal, reduced the maximum sentence from seven to two years' jail term, while upholding the conviction.
Upon reaching the matter before it, the apex court, "We find that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant forcibly took the victim away from lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent or wrongfully confined in a locked room. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant on a motorbike on August 4, 2012 and had a free access to the house where both of them were residing. Therefore, the charge of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 363 IPC and wrongful confinement under Section 342 is also not made out."
The court said that it is trite law that a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim, provided that her evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the court and appears to be natural and truthful. However, if the version given by the prosecutrix is inconsistent, unsupported by any medical evidence, or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and believable in the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.
"In the present case, we find that this charge has no legs to stand on, for she only makes a positive statement about the occurrence of sexual intercourse and does not even in the slightest imply the same to be against her will. The absence of consent is the sine qua non to sustain a charge under Section 376. That cannot, in our opinion, be met as per the evidence on record," the bench said.
Among others, court noted the birth certificate issued by the Zilla Parishad High School, produced by the prosecution to establish that the victim was below the age of sixteen years on the date of incident, was not sufficiently corroborated.
The bench pointed out that this court, in Alamelu v. State (2011), while dealing with a similar factual matrix, held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the girl was a minor at the relevant date since the transfer certificate of a Government School showing age was not duly proved by witnesses.
"In the attending facts, we find that the evidentiary value of the birth certificate is significantly undermined in the absence of corroborating material," the bench said.
The court pointed out that the headmaster admitted that he had no personal knowledge as to the source or basis on which the date of birth was recorded therein, or if the recorded date of birth was correct or not.
"It is essential to notice that the prosecution has failed to toe the line of legal requisites. There is nothing on record to corroborate the date of birth of the victim as recorded in the birth certificate issued by the school. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon to definitely determine the age of the victim and hold with certainty that the victim was below sixteen/eighteen years of age," the bench said.
Court also noted all three of the I.O.s were curiously silent on the aspect of the age of the alleged rape victim.
"This, in itself, raises credible questions about the investigation since a charge of rape is involved in which the age of the victim is an essential factor," the bench said.
Court also noted throughout her deposition, the victim, her mother and brother had remained silent with regard to the particular date of birth.
With regard to charge of kidnapping and wrongful confinement, the bench pointed out, the victim's own deposition did not demonstrate that the appellant forcibly removed or enticed her from the guardianship of her parents with deceit or inducement.
She admitted to having voluntarily accompanied the appellant on a motorbike on the morning of August 4, 2012, and having resided with him for nearly two months. Furthermore, there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the missing report. The victim was reportedly missing since the morning of August 4, 2012, yet, the FIR was registered only on August 8, 2012, court pointed out.
Neither the mother nor the brothers of the victim offered any credible explanation for such a delay. This silence in the face of the alleged kidnapping raises legitimate doubts over the genesis of the prosecution’s case, the bench said.
About wrongful confinement, the bench said, the victim admitted that the appellant left daily for work and that she remained alone at the residence. Finally, it is suggested that the appellant used to put a lock on the main door of the house, court highlighted.
"But this version appears to be just an afterthought and not correct. For, there is no indication that she attempted to flee, contact neighbours, or otherwise signal her unwillingness to stay in that house. This.conduct stands in stark contrast to what one might expect of a person wrongfully confined against his/her volition," the bench said.
After going through the victim's testimony, the bench said it becomes evident that the victim cohabited with the appellant for a considerable duration without asserting that her presence was coerced, manipulated, or forced through threats or deceit.
It was only when the appellant met with an accident on October 12, 2012, and was hospitalised, that the victim returned home. Even when the appellant was hospitalised, the victim stayed with him for two days at the hospital.
"These circumstances strongly suggest that the victim was not staying with the appellant against her own volition or will. We further find the narrative provided by her during the trial, to be improvised from her earlier statement recorded," the bench said.
Court said no definite conclusion could be drawn about the age of the victim.Case Title: Birka Shiva Vs The State of Telangana
Judgment Date: July 16, 2025
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta