Conviction under POCSO Act unsustainable in the absence of evidence establishing the victim’s minority.

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Khunti, for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 07.11.2017, the appellant forcibly took the 16-year-old victim to Jurdag forest on a motorcycle, assaulted her, and committed rape.

The victim (P.V. 2) claimed she sustained injuries and that her clothes were stained.

However, the medical examiner (P.W. 3) found no external injuries, no signs of recent sexual intercourse, and no scratches.

The Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) confirmed no seizure of undergarments and no signs of struggle at the site.

The defense contended the case was a false implication arising from a land purchase dispute.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the victim to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the testimony of the victim was sufficiently corroborated by medical and investigative evidence to sustain a conviction for sexual assault.

The court primarily applied Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which mandates proof that the victim is a "child" (under 18 years of age) as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.

It further relied on the evidentiary principle that material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence (Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act), when coupled with a lack of proof regarding a vital ingredient like age, entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

The Court observed a total lack of evidence regarding the victim's age; neither the parents nor the victim deposed to her age, and no school or birth certificates were produced.

The prosecution failed to bring any medical age-assessment report on record, while defense witnesses testified she was a major (approx. 20 years old).

Regarding the assault, the Court found the victim’s testimony heavily contradicted by P.W. 3 (Doctor) and P.W. 6 (I.O.), who found no injuries, no struggle marks, and no blood/semen stains on clothes.

The Court noted that since minority is the sine qua non for a POCSO conviction, the failure to prove age was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, the land dispute (Ext.-A) suggested a potential motive for false implication.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding that the victim’s age was not proved and her testimony remained uncorroborated by medical evidence.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and the Order of sentence dated 20.12.2018, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.