Conviction under POCSO Section 6 modified to Section 4 absent proof of aggravating circumstances.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on December 12, 2024, under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the sexual assault of a minor girl, ‘T’, on June 7, 2017

The Prosecution alleged the Appellant entered the victim's room while she was resting and committed penetrative sexual assault

The Appellant pleaded false implication due to a financial dispute and an inter-faith relationship between his brother and the victim's sister

The Trial Court relied on ocular testimony, medical evidence (MLC), and a DNA report matching the Appellant’s profile to the victim’s samples

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of disputed age and a broken chain of custody regarding biological samples

The Court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which grants primacy to school records for age determination

It followed State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (2026) regarding the mandatory hierarchy of evidence for victim age

Regarding evidence integrity, the court applied the principle from Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan v. State of Kerala (2025), holding that defective investigation alone does not entitle an accused to acquittal if other evidence is reliable

For sentencing, it applied Section 4 (Penetrative Sexual Assault) vs Section 6 (Aggravated PSA) of the POCSO Act, noting that the 2019 Amendment could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed in 2017

The Court found the Prosecutrix's age was duly proved via school records (Admission Register and parent affidavits) under Section 94 of the JJ Act, especially since the defense failed to challenge these documents during cross-examination

Regarding the DNA evidence, the Court rejected claims of tampering, noting that witnesses PW-9, PW-11, and PW-15 consistently testified that seals were intact upon delivery to the FSL

The DNA profile match provided conclusive corroboration of the victim’s ocular testimony

However, the Court identified a legal error in the conviction under Section 6 of POCSO; since the victim was not below 12 years and no other aggravating factors under Section 5 were proved, the offense fell under Section 4

Furthermore, since the crime occurred in 2017, the pre-amendment minimum sentence of seven years applied rather than the 2019 ten-year minimum

It held that the Prosecution successfully proved penetrative sexual assault but failed to prove "aggravated" circumstances

Considering the Appellant’s 9-year incarceration (exceeding the 7-year minimum), satisfactory jail conduct, and socio-economic status, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone

The Appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, subject to the payment of the fine and compensation