Failure to prove victim’s minority defeats POCSO conviction but does not preclude conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC.

The appellant was prosecuted in connection with Goreswar P.S. Case No. 122/2019 for allegedly raping the victim on 10 October 2019 near the Deosunga River.

The prosecution alleged that the victim was below 18 years of age and that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

The victim deposed that the appellant dragged her into a jungle and raped her; PWs 4 and 6 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, while PW 5 saw the appellant being restrained and thereafter fleeing.

The medical examination disclosed a tear in the hymen with bleeding and evidence of recent penetration.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) and sentenced him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine, but did not record a finding on the separately framed charge under Section 376(1) IPC.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the credibility of the victim and eyewitnesses, the proof of age, and the legality of the conviction.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond the requisite standard that the victim was below 18 years of age so as to sustain the conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the evidence of the victim, the eyewitnesses, and the medical officer established that the appellant had raped the victim.

3. Whether the High Court could sustain or record a conviction under Section 376(1) IPC notwithstanding the Trial Court’s failure to return a finding on that charge.

4. Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and the relationship of PWs 4, 5 and 6 with the victim rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable.

The Court applied Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which criminalises penetrative sexual assault upon a “child,” namely a person below 18 years; and Section 376(1) IPC relating to punishment for rape.

For age determination, the Court relied on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, under which the school or matriculation certificate and, failing that, the birth certificate are preferred, with ossification or other medical testing being used only in their absence.

Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171, establishes that a credible prosecutrix’s testimony can itself support conviction and that minor discrepancies do not destroy an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221, holds that the contents of a document are not proved merely by its exhibition or absence of objection to admissibility.

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 683, and Akula Raghuram v. State of A.P., (2025) 4 SCC 209, recognise that ossification or radiological age assessment is not exact and may involve a margin of two years on either side.

Under Raj Kumar v. State of M.P., (2014) 5 SCC 353, an accused’s failure to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. may permit an adverse inference where otherwise legally permissible.

Relationship with the victim, by itself, is not a ground to reject testimony unless there is evidence of motive to falsely implicate the accused, as held in State of U.P. v. Saman Das, AIR 1972 SC 67.

The Court found the occurrence of rape proved through the consistent core of the victim’s testimony, the accounts of PWs 4 and 6 claiming to have witnessed the act, PW 5’s evidence that the appellant fled after being restrained, and the medical evidence of recent penetration and hymenal injury.

The discrepancies concerning whether the victim knew the appellant and whether she had gone to defecate or fetch water were treated as minor and unrelated to the factum of rape.

The relationship of PWs 4, 5 and 6 with the victim did not justify rejecting their evidence in the absence of proof of enmity or a motive to falsely implicate the appellant.

However, the School Certificate and Birth Certificate referred to in the seizure list had neither been produced nor exhibited, and the seizure list itself did not prove their contents.

The only admissible age-related evidence was the radiological assessment placing the victim between 14 and 16 years.

Applying the permissible two-year margin in favour of the accused, the Court treated her age as potentially 18 years at the time of the occurrence, thereby holding that the prosecution had not established that she was a “child” under the POCSO Act.

Nevertheless, the proved act of rape, together with the appellant’s blanket denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and failure to explain his presence and flight, justified conviction under Section 376(1) IPC.

It nevertheless held that the prosecution proved the commission of rape by the appellant and convicted him under Section 376(1) IPC.

The sentence was modified from 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC, with a fine of ₹20,000 and, in default, six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal was dismissed subject to this modification, and the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.