Conviction under POCSO and IPC fails where medical evidence suggests majority and consensual physical relationship is established.

The Appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that on June 5, 2015, the Appellant enticed away the informant’s minor daughter (aged 16).

The victim (P.W.-8) testified that she went with the Appellant and returned after approximately 40 days.

While the parents claimed she was 15, the victim admitted she had a 10th-grade certificate which was never produced in court.

The medical examiner (P.W.-9) assessed the victim's age as 17 years +/- one year.

1. Whether the victim was a "minor" at the time of the occurrence to justify conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the essential ingredients of Section 366 and 376 of the IPC, specifically "lack of consent" or "against her will," were established by the prosecution.

The court applied Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which requires the victim to be below 18 years of age, and Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC regarding kidnapping for marriage and rape, respectively.

For a conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC involving an adult, the court emphasized the core legal requirement that the act must be "against the will" of the victim.

As per established evidentiary principles, when documentary evidence (such as a birth certificate) is available but withheld by the prosecution, the court may rely on medical jurisprudence for age determination.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor. Although the victim claimed to have a 10th-grade certificate, it was not brought on record; consequently, the Court relied on the medical report (P.W.-9) which assessed her age as 17 +/- one year, leading to the conclusion that she was likely a major.

Regarding the IPC charges, the Court observed that the victim (P.W.-8) never stated that the physical relationship or her departure with the Appellant was against her will.

She admitted during cross-examination that she did not disclose any forced physical relationship in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

Since the victim was a major and there was no evidence of coercion or lack of consent—the "prime ingredient" for these offenses—the conviction could not be sustained.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the Judgment of conviction dated 12.03.2019 and the Order of sentence dated 16.03.2019. The Appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bond.