Failure to Prove Minority Voids Prosecution for Non-Consensual Sex if Relationship is Voluntarily Established

The State appealed against a judgment dated 19.12.2022 by the Special Judge (POCSO), Betul, which acquitted the respondents of several charges.

The prosecution alleged that in 2016, the minor prosecutrix was lured away by respondents Rajesh and Maya, sold to Vishnu for ₹35,000, and subsequently raped by Vishnu, resulting in the birth of two children.

During the trial, the prosecutrix (PW-3), her parents (PW-4, PW-6), and her brother (PW-8) were declared hostile.

They testified that the prosecutrix went voluntarily, was approximately 18-19 years old at the time, and had married Vishnu.

The State contended the Scholar Register proved her minority, and a DNA report confirmed Vishnu’s paternity.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the acquittal of the respondents by the Trial Court was perverse or legally unsustainable despite the DNA evidence establishing paternity.

The Court applied Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal.

The Court relied on established precedents governing appellate interference in acquittals, including H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which dictates that if the Trial Court’s view is "possible," the High Court cannot overturn it merely because another view exists.

It further applied principles from Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that appellate courts must only interfere if the judgment is perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or suffers from a patent error of law.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s findings. Regarding age, the Court noted that the Scholar Register entry lacked a verified source; the Transfer Certificate (TC) allegedly used was not produced, and the teacher responsible for the entry was not examined.

Consequently, the Trial Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor was held to be legally sound.

On the merits of the rape and kidnapping charges, the Court observed that all material witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8) turned hostile and supported a narrative of voluntary marriage.

While the DNA report confirmed Vishnu's paternity (Ex. P-44), the Court reasoned that in the absence of proof of minority and given the prosecutrix’s testimony of a consensual marriage, the DNA evidence did not prove any criminal offence.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, affirming that when two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must prevail.

The application for leave to appeal (I.A. No. 10368/2023) was dismissed, and the criminal appeal was subsequently dismissed. Vishnu and the other respondents remain acquitted.