Summary and Analysis of Birka Shiva Vs State Of Telangana

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case: Birka Shiva vs State of Telangana
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges:

• Justice Sanjay Karol

• Justice Sandeep Mehta
  Date: July 16, 2025
  Outcome:

• Conviction set aside (acquittal granted).

• Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 376, 363, and 342 IPC.

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 363 (Kidnapping)
  Section 342 (Wrongful confinement)
  Section 376 (Rape)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 35 (Admissibility of public records).

3. Basic Case Details

• Incident: August 4, 2012.

• Parties:
  Appellant: Birka Shiva, friend of the victim's brother (PW-4).
  Victim (PW-3): A college student (allegedly minor).

• Prosecution Allegations:
  Appellant kidnapped the victim from her college.
  Confined her in Hyderabad for 2 months.
  Performed a fake marriage ritual ("pasupukommu").
  Had non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape).

• Trial Court (2018):
  Convicted under Sections 363, 342, 376 IPC.
  Sentenced to 5 years (kidnapping), 7 years (rape), 6 months (confinement).

• High Court (2024):
  Upheld conviction but reduced sentences (1 year for kidnapping, 2 years for rape).

• Supreme Court (2025):
  Acquitted the appellant due to insufficient evidence.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

I. Age of Victim Not Proven

The Supreme Court rejected the prosecution's claim that the victim was a minor (<16 years), citing:

1. Unreliable Evidence:
   Ex.P11 (School Certificate): Showed birth date as November 3, 1996 (making her 15 years 9 months old).
   Flaws:
   PW-13 (Headmaster) admitted he had "no personal knowledge" of how the date was recorded.
   No evidence showed who provided the birth date (parents or others).
   Primary school records (1st–5th class) were not produced.

2. Legal Precedents:
   Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit: School records lack probative value unless the informant (e.g., parents) is examined.
   Alamelu v. State: Mere production of school certificates is insufficient without corroboration.

3. Witness Silence:
   Victim’s mother (PW-1), brothers (PWs 2, 4), and victim herself did not testify about her age.
   Investigating Officers (PW-10 to PW-12) failed to verify age through municipal/birth records.

Court’s View:

"Prosecution failed to prove victim was a minor. Ex.P11 alone cannot establish age beyond doubt."

II. Kidnapping & Wrongful Confinement Charges Fail

The Court found no evidence of force or enticement:

1. Voluntary Departure:
   Victim (PW-3) admitted she willingly accompanied the appellant on his motorcycle.
   Delayed FIR: Victim went "missing" on August 4, 2012, but FIR was lodged only on August 8, 2012 – no explanation for delay.

2. No Confinement:
   Victim stayed with appellant for 2 months in Hyderabad.
   No Restraints: She never attempted to escape, contact neighbors, or report coercion.
   Contradiction: Her trial testimony about being "locked in" was absent in her initial police statement (Ex.D1).

3. Post-Incident Conduct:
   When appellant was hospitalized after an accident (October 12, 2012), victim stayed with him for 2 days before returning home.

Court’s View:

"Voluntary cohabitation and absence of restraint negate kidnapping/confinement charges."

III. Rape Charge Not Established

The Court acquitted the appellant of rape due to lack of non-consent:

1. No Evidence of Force:
   Victim’s testimony did not mention resistance, threats, or lack of consent.
   Medical Report (PW-8): Confirmed "regular sexual intercourse" but noted no signs of recent force.

2. Consensual Relationship:
   Appellant tied "pasupukommu" (turmeric thread) as a marriage ritual – victim participated.
   Couple cohabited peacefully for 2 months with no complaints.

3. Legal Principle:
   State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh: Conviction for rape requires proof of non-consent. Solitary testimony of victim suffices only if credible and consistent – which was absent here.

Court’s View:

"Relationship appeared consensual. Prosecution failed to prove absence of consent."

Final Order

1. Conviction under Sections 376, 363, 342 IPC set aside.

2. Appellant acquitted of all charges.

3. High Court’s order overturned.

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed:

• Age Proof: School records require corroboration (e.g., parental testimony or primary documents).

• Consent in Rape Cases: Non-consent must be proved beyond doubt; consensual relations are not rape.

• Kidnapping: Requires evidence of enticement/force – voluntary accompaniment negates the charge.

Note: The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution's case appeared "concocted" due to glaring gaps in evidence.