Summary
The Court acquitted the appellant because the prosecution failed to establish that the prosecutrix was below eighteen under the prescribed age-determination framework. The transfer certificate and admission extracts did not meet the statutory documentary requirements, while the medical evidence placed her age between eighteen and twenty. The Court also found the record inconsistent with the prosecution’s account of compulsion.
Issues
- How age must be proved when minority of a POCSO prosecutrix is disputed.
- Whether the documentary, medical and testimonial record sustained the appellant’s convictions.
Provisions considered
- Section 34, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Age determination by the Special Court was required to follow the statutory process considered with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Section 94(2), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015The prescribed hierarchy required qualifying school or board certificates, then a local-authority birth certificate, and medical assessment only in their absence. The documents here did not satisfy the first two categories. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19)
- Sections 5(l) and 6, as applicable to the occurrence, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The conviction could not stand where minority was unproved and the overall evidence did not sustain the prosecution case; the Court recognized that consent does not remove POCSO liability when the victim is a minor. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The prosecutrix’s prior voluntary account was considered with the recording Magistrate’s unchallenged testimony; the trial court’s supposition of compulsion was rejected on this record. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Held
- When age is disputed in a POCSO case, the Section 94 framework governs: school date-of-birth or board matriculation/equivalent certificates take priority, followed by a corporation, municipal or panchayat birth certificate, with medical determination in their absence. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 16)
- The transfer certificate and admission-register extracts produced here did not answer the statutory documentary descriptions. Their underlying basis was not established and the relevant birth register was unavailable. They could not justify rejecting the medical assessment as merely approximate. (¶¶ 14, 18, 19)
- The ossification evidence, explained by the examining radiologist, placed the prosecutrix between eighteen and twenty. On this record it was the most authentic age evidence, and the prosecution had not discharged its burden of establishing minority. (¶ 19)
- The recording Magistrate affirmed that the earlier account of a voluntary relationship and marriage was freely made and was not cross-examined. The trial court’s contrary speculation was untenable. These factual conclusions accompanied the failure to prove minority; the Court did not recognize a minor’s consent as a defence to POCSO liability. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The appellant’s convictions under Section 6 POCSO and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act were set aside, and he was acquitted with immediate release unless required in another case. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; impugned judgment set aside and appellant acquitted. Release forthwith directed unless required in another case.