DNA-Proven Father Gets 10 Years For Repeated Rape, While Karnataka HC Sets Aside POCSO Conviction For Failure To Prove Victim Was A Minor

The prosecution alleged that the appellant repeatedly raped the victim, who was said to be under 16, threatened her and caused her pregnancy.

The victim’s mother lodged the complaint after learning of the pregnancy; DNA testing identified the appellant as the biological father of the child

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC, and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

On appeal, the High Court considered whether the victim’s age had been proved and whether the convictions and sentences could be sustained.

Section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as discussed in P. Yuvaprakash v. State of T.N., provides an evidentiary hierarchy for age determination, with school or matriculation records preferred before other documents or medical age testing.

The prosecution must prove the victim’s age to establish the relevant age-based elements of the POCSO offences and Section 376(3) IPC.

The Court also applied the principle that consent given under a life threat is not consent in the eye of law, and considered the victim’s testimony and the DNA evidence in assessing the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC.

The Court accepted the DNA report as reliable: the samples were collected on 8 April 2019 and sealed articles were received by the scientific officer the following day, supporting the finding that the appellant fathered the child.

But paternity did not establish the victim’s age.

The prosecution relied on a study certificate stating her date of birth, while the underlying school admission register was not produced; the Head Master had not been present when she was admitted and acknowledged that entries could be based on parents’ statements or birth certificates.

The Court therefore found the certificate insufficient to prove that the victim was under 18 or under 16.

The age-proof failure defeated the age-dependent convictions under the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC, but not the convictions under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC: the victim testified to repeated rape and threats, and the Court found no material elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve her account.

The Court set aside the convictions and sentences under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l), read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for failure to prove the victim’s age.

It affirmed the convictions under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, sentencing the appellant to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹40,000 for Section 376(2)(n), with one year’s simple imprisonment in default, and confirming one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 506; the sentences were to run concurrently, with set-off.

The fine, if paid, was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation, and the trial court’s remaining compensation order was left undisturbed.