Gauhati HC Acquits Man In Rape, POCSO Case, Treating Victim As 18 After X-Ray Estimate And Finding Their Sexual Relationship Consensual

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj, under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced under both provisions.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had sexual relations with the complainant’s daughter, who was said to be 16 years old, and that the relationship resulted in pregnancy.

The victim testified that the first sexual encounter was forced, but also stated that she was 19 at the time of that incident; she later said she was 17.

Her birth certificate, recording her date of birth as 2 October 1995, had not been exhibited at trial.

The medical evidence assessed her age as 17–18 years.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the victim’s age and the alleged force were not proved.

Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(a), 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act govern rape and penetrative sexual assault, including aggravated forms; the Court held that a sexual relationship between consenting adults would not attract those provisions.

For age determination, the Court relied on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, which it said permitted the age-determination procedure to be applied to a rape victim.

It also considered decisions recognising that ossification testing provides only an approximate age and may involve a margin of error, including Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh and Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

Section 42 of the POCSO Act provides for punishment under either the POCSO Act or the IPC, whichever provides the greater punishment, where the same act constitutes offences under both.

The Court noted that the victim’s birth certificate had not been admitted in evidence and relied instead on the medical report assessing her age at 17–18 years.

Applying the margin of error discussed in the cited authorities, it treated the victim as 18 years old at the relevant time.

On the question of force, the Court considered the victim’s testimony alongside her Section 164 CrPC statement, identifying inconsistencies including the place of occurrence.

It concluded that the victim’s account of the first encounter as forced was not reliable, and treated the repeated sexual relations and resulting pregnancy as supporting a consensual relationship; it considered the complaint to have followed the appellant’s refusal to marry her.

Separately, the Court observed that sentencing under both Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was inconsistent with Section 42, although that issue no longer affected the outcome once the convictions were set aside.

It directed that he be released from custody immediately unless required in another case, and ordered the trial court record to be returned.