Ambiguous allegation of "physical relationship" without proof of penetration cannot sustain a POCSO conviction.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following a judgment by the Special Judge, Udalguri

The prosecution alleged that the appellant kidnapped the 15-year-old victim (PW-2) on January 21, 2023, took her to Guwahati and Golaghat, and forcibly established a "physical relationship"

The appellant maintained they were in a consensual love affair and that no sexual intercourse occurred

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The medical evidence (PW-7) estimated the victim's age at 15–17 years via radiological examination but found no spermatozoa or signs of recent sexual intercourse

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident?

2. Whether the term "physical relationship" used in the victim’s testimony is sufficient to establish "penetrative sexual assault" as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act?

3. Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act are sustainable based on the evidence on record?

The court applied Section 3 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which define and penalize penetrative sexual assault, and Section 376(3) of the IPC

It relied on the settled legal principle regarding age determination via ossification tests, which allows for a margin of error of ± 1 to 2 years in favor of the accused

Furthermore, the court applied the fundamental criminal jurisprudence principle that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted

The court also emphasized the requirement of specific evidence of "penetration" to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 3 of the POCSO Act

The court found that the prosecution failed to exhibit the victim’s birth certificate, rendering her age proof dependent solely on a radiological exam (15–17 years); applying the standard margin of error of ± 2 years, the victim could be considered an adult

Regarding the act itself, the court observed that the victim’s testimony used the ambiguous phrase "physical relationship," which does not necessarily imply penetration as required by the POCSO Act

The medical report (PW-7) corroborated this lack of evidence, noting no signs of sexual intercourse or injury

The court further noted that the victim’s conduct—carrying a bag of clothes, waiting for the appellant, and failing to raise an alarm despite traveling through crowded public spaces and staying in a room with 20–25 neighbors—contradicted her claim of being taken forcibly

Additionally, the testimony of PW-6, who stayed with the couple, indicated no sexual activity occurred, thereby discrediting the victim’s version of events

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence order dated September 7, 2024, and September 17, 2024

The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by being granted the benefit of doubt and was ordered to be discharged from his bail bond