Failure to prove minority through school records and evidence of consensual conduct warrants acquittal in POCSO cases.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on 12.01.2024 for kidnapping and sexual assault of a victim alleged to be a minor

The prosecution case stated that on 16.01.2022, the victim went missing from her home and was later found to have lived with the appellant in a rented house in Madhya Pradesh for over a month

The Trial Court relied on a school dakhil-kharij (admission-discharge) register [Ex. P-27C] to determine the victim’s date of birth as 06.06.2006, making her a minor at the time of the incident

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the victim was a consenting adult and that her age was not legally proven

The Court applied Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility of public records, noting that while school registers are admissible, they hold little evidentiary value in the absence of the material (e.g., birth certificate) upon which the entry was based

It relied on Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006) and Alamelu v. State (2011) to establish that a higher standard of proof for age is required in criminal trials to protect the accused’s rights under Article 21

Furthermore, it followed Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of UP (2022) and P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023), emphasizing that the hierarchy of documents under Section 94 of the JJ Act must be strictly followed for age determination

The Court found the prosecution failed to provide clinching evidence of the victim's age. The Headmistress (PW-9) admitted the birth entry was made solely on oral information from the father without verifying birth certificates or Kotwari registers

Citing the contradictions between the victim’s statement and PW-9, the Court held it unsafe to rely on the school register alone

Regarding the merits, the Court observed from the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement and trial testimony (PW-2) that she accompanied the appellant voluntarily, lived as his wife for a month in a rented house, and never raised an alarm despite having ample opportunity

Testing her testimony, the Court concluded it did not inspire confidence to support a charge of rape, as her conduct demonstrated she was a "willing and consenting party" who was likely above 18 years of age

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.01.2024. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and ordered to be released forthwith