### Conviction for Rape and POCSO Quashed Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Scientific Proof of Minority

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, based on the complaint of a 15-year-old victim alleging rape on the pretext of marriage

The prosecution claimed the appellant befriended the victim in February 2019, provided her a mobile phone, and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, including an incident on 29.03.2019 where her siblings allegedly rescued her from the appellant’s house

The defense contended that the relationship was consensual (inter-faith), the victim was a major, and the case was filed only after marriage talks failed

The appellant challenged the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2020 and the sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment

The Court applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act

It strictly followed the age determination procedure under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates a hierarchy of evidence: school/matriculation certificates, then municipal birth certificates, and only in their absence, medical ossification tests

Regarding witness credibility, the Court relied on Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the "sterling witness" test

Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana for applying JJ Act age-determination standards to victims

It further applied the "margin of error" principle (+/- 2 years) for radiological age estimation as established in Rajak Mohammad v. H.P.

The Court found the prosecutrix's testimony riddled with contradictions across her FIR, Section 164 CrPC statement, and court deposition; notably, she admitted she did not resist the acts and remained willing to marry the appellant

The Court determined she was not a "sterling witness" as her version was not unassailable or consistent

On the issue of age, the prosecution failed to produce any primary documentary evidence (school certificates), and the medical officer assessed her age between 18-19 years

By applying the legal "margin of error" of two years to the upper age limit, the Court found the victim could be considered 21 years old, thus major, making POCSO inapplicable

Finally, since both parties belonged to different religions and the complaint was filed only after a refusal to marry, the Court held that a breach of promise to marry in a long-term consensual relationship does not automatically satisfy the "misconception of fact" requirement for rape

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt

The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds were cancelled