Failure to prove victim's minority through admissible evidence vitiates conviction under POCSO and IPC rape provisions.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on December 3, 2022, for offenses under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on May 22, 2020, the appellant abducted the victim (allegedly a minor), took her to a temple to perform a marriage ceremony, and thereafter wrongfully confined and sexually assaulted her for three days.

The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, as both were in love while in school, and challenged the prosecution's evidence regarding the victim’s minority.

The appellant remained in judicial custody from the date of arrest through the appeal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a "child" as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act at the time of the offense.

2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court applied Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012, defining a child as a person under 18 years.

Procedurally, it relied on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007, which establish a hierarchy of proof for age determination (Matriculation certificate, followed by Birth Certificate, then ossification test).

It invoked Section 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, regarding the mandatory registration of a child's name.

Evidence law principles from *Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal* [(2003) 8 SCC 745] were applied to hold that mere marking of a document does not prove its contents.

Finally, the doctrine of adverse inference under *Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP* [(2015) 7 SCC 178] was applied regarding the non-production of best evidence (call records).

The Court found the age proof insufficient because the prosecution relied on a Xerox copy of a birth certificate (Ex. P23) which lacked the victim's name and was not authenticated by its author.

The school certificate (Ex. P18) was deemed unreliable as the issuing Headmistress (PW10) had no personal knowledge of the admission and the primary records (Admission Register) were not produced.

The Court noted the Investigating Officer failed to conduct an ossification test or retrieve the victim's Matriculation certificate despite her being a PUC student.

On the merits of the IPC charges, the Court observed that the victim’s own statements under Section 164 CrPC and the medical report (Ex. P9) indicated a voluntary romantic relationship and consensual history.

The absence of external injuries and the failure of the IO to produce mobile call records led the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's claim of abduction and forcible rape.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor, thereby rendering the POCSO charges unsustainable.

Furthermore, the evidence suggested a consensual relationship, vitiating the charges of abduction and rape under the IPC.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and 20-year sentence, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release.