Acquittal upheld where prosecution fails to prove minority and prosecutrix’s testimony lacks sterling quality.

The State appealed against a trial court judgment dated July 20, 2019, which acquitted the respondent, Kuldeep, of charges under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, and 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on January 10, 2013, the prosecutrix 'P' (allegedly aged 16.5 years) was lured to Amritsar by the respondent following telephonic threats.

She was recovered from Amritsar on January 27, 2013.

The respondent claimed innocence, asserting he was falsely implicated after refusing a monetary demand from the prosecutrix's mother.

During the trial, the prosecution relied on a birth certificate (Ex. PW-4/X2) and the prosecutrix's testimony.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully proved that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was of "sterling quality" and sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault.

3. Whether there exist substantial and compelling reasons for the Appellate Court to interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal.

The court applied the evidentiary standards for determining the age of a minor, noting that birth certificates must be supported by original records and "Janam Patri" or vaccination cards do not constitute legal proof of age.

Regarding sexual offences, the court followed the principle that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, such testimony must be scrutinized for material contradictions and improbable conduct.

Furthermore, the court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal as established in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) and Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007), which mandate that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal and should only be disturbed if the trial court’s view is perverse or palpably wrong.

The court found the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor, as the MCD official could not produce the original birth register and the parents could not state her date of birth.

Consequently, POCSO Act charges were deemed inapplicable.

Regarding the merits, the court noted the prosecutrix’s version was highly improbable: she claimed to have traveled alone to Amritsar due to telephonic threats from a person she had never met, yet she admitted to calling him "Babu" or "husband" and voluntarily sending him SMS messages prior to the incident.

Crucially, she admitted in cross-examination that she had worked her regular job in Delhi for the entire month of January 2013, which directly contradicted her claim of being confined in Amritsar during that period.

The court also highlighted the lack of physical injuries in the MLC, her failure to seek help while visiting public places like the Golden Temple, and inconsistencies regarding the respondent’s arrest.

The court held that the prosecutrix’s testimony was not of "sterling quality" due to material contradictions and improvements that went to the root of the case.

It concluded that the trial court’s view was reasonable and plausible, and in the absence of perversity or illegality, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused must prevail.

The bail bond and surety were discharged.