Failure to prove the victim’s minority beyond reasonable doubt defeats a POCSO conviction despite a consensual relationship.

The appellant was prosecuted for allegedly taking P.W.3, stated by the prosecution to be below 18 years of age, from her college on 23.06.2016, taking her to Nambiyur and other places, marrying her by tying a yellow thread, and having sexual intercourse with her.

P.W.3 had previously developed a love relationship with the appellant and accompanied him to Nambiyur, Tirupati and Palani, where they lived together as husband and wife.

Her father lodged the complaint, following which the appellant and P.W.3 appeared before the police and sought protection.

The prosecution relied on school and college records showing her date of birth as 01.06.1999, a birth certificate referring to a female child born on 22.12.1999, and medical evidence indicating that she had completed 17 years.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366 IPC, 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sentencing him to terms including life imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO.

The appellant challenged the conviction in the present appeal.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that P.W.3 was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence, so as to attract the statutory consequences under the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

Whether the appellant committed kidnapping or abduction of P.W.3 for the purpose of compelling her marriage, as required for conviction under Section 366 IPC, despite her having voluntarily accompanied him in the context of their love relationship.

Whether the alleged sexual relationship attracted Section 6 of the POCSO Act when the evidence indicated consensual conduct but the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority with certainty.

The Court applied Section 366 IPC, which requires proof that the accused took or enticed a woman for the purpose of compelling her marriage or facilitating illicit intercourse; mere subsequent presence of the woman in the accused’s company is insufficient without proof of an act of taking or inducement.

Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, impose criminal liability where the statutory requirements, including the victim’s status as a child under 18 years, are proved; a minor’s consent is legally immaterial under POCSO.

Although school and birth records ordinarily receive evidentiary preference in determining age, the presumption arising from them is rebuttable and cannot be mechanically applied where their reliability or linkage to the victim is doubtful.

Medical or ossification evidence carries an accepted margin of error of approximately two years on either side, and any resulting reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, as recognised in Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 9 SCC 248, and Umesh Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3048.

Mere subsequent presence of the woman in the accused’s company is insufficient without proof of an act of taking or inducement.

The Court found that P.W.3’s evidence disclosed a pre-existing love relationship, voluntary accompaniment, cohabitation with the appellant, and consensual physical relations.

The prosecution failed to produce the relevant mobile phone or call records to substantiate that the appellant had enticed or compelled her to leave.

More importantly, the evidence regarding age was inconsistent: the school and college records mentioned 01.06.1999, P.W.3 disputed that date, her mother admitted that the school date had been entered by the Headmaster and was incorrect, and the birth certificate did not contain the child’s name or sufficiently establish that it related to P.W.3.

The ossification examination merely indicated completion of 17 years and was subject to a two-year margin of error.

Since the prosecution did not establish minority beyond reasonable doubt, the Court treated P.W.3 as a major for the purpose of criminal adjudication.

Her voluntary conduct and the absence of proof of taking or inducement consequently defeated the charge under Section 366 IPC; the failure to prove minority also undermined the charges under the Child Marriage Act and POCSO.

The conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Erode, in Special S.C. No.6 of 2017 dated 09.06.2017, under Sections 366 IPC, 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and 6 of the POCSO Act, were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Any fine paid was directed to be refunded, and the bail bond was ordered to stand discharged.