Consent is irrelevant under the POCSO Act upon establishing the victim’s minority through statutory birth records.

The State appealed against a Trial Court judgment dated 18th December 2019, which acquitted the respondent, Deepak, of charges under Sections 363/365/366A/342/376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 9th May 2014, the respondent abducted the prosecutrix (aged approximately 15-16 years) near a public lavatory, confined her in his jhuggi for two days, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

The respondent claimed a consensual love affair and disputed the prosecutrix's minority.

The Trial Court granted the respondent the benefit of doubt regarding the prosecutrix's age and acquitted him based on the possibility of consent.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in discarding the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation for determining the age of the prosecutrix.

2. Whether the consent of the prosecutrix is legally relevant given her status as a minor under the POCSO Act.

3. Whether the scientific evidence (DNA profiling) and circumstantial evidence were sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondent.

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, which grant primacy to birth certificates issued by municipal authorities in determining age.

The precedent set in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, affirming that Rule 12 applies to victim age determination.

Strict liability principles of the POCSO Act, 2012, which render the consent of a minor irrelevant to the commission of sexual offences.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding expert DNA testimony was also central to corroborating the physical act.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s rejection of the birth certificate (Ex. PW-8/C) to be "perverse and erroneous".

The Court reasoned that since the certificate was registered in 2009—well before the 2014 incident—the possibility of fabrication was nonexistent.

Under the statutory hierarchy of evidence, the birth certificate carries a presumption of correctness that oral testimonies of illiterate parents cannot displace.

Upon establishing the prosecutrix was a minor (born 23.01.1999), the Court held that the Trial Court's inquiry into "consent" was "legally untenable" as the law does not recognize a minor's capacity to consent to sexual activity.

The Court noted that FSL report (Ex. PW-4/A) provided conclusive STR analysis matching the respondent's DNA to seminal stains on the prosecutrix's clothing, thereby scientifically confirming the assault.

The Court answered the issues by affirming the primacy of the birth certificate and the irrelevance of consent in cases involving minors.

The respondent, Deepak, was convicted under Sections 363/366/342 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The matter was scheduled for 7th May 2026 to hear arguments on the quantum of sentence.