Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal In POCSO Case, Saying Prosecution Failed To Prove Victim Was Under 18 Or Link Accused To Her Death

The prosecution alleged that the accused abducted the victim, then aged about 16 years and five months, from her parents’ custody on 8 May 2024, raped and harassed her, and thereby contributed to her suicide.

The victim’s body was found in a field; the post-mortem attributed her death to poisoning.

The Special Judge acquitted the accused of offences under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 306, and POCSO Act Sections 4, 6 and 12. The appellant challenged the acquittal under Section 419 of the BNSS.

The High Court considered the appeal at the admission stage.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident, so as to attract the POCSO Act and its statutory presumptions.

2. Whether the evidence established the alleged kidnapping, rape and abetment of suicide, and whether the acquittal warranted appellate interference.

Under POCSO Act Sections 29 and 30, the statutory presumptions apply only where the necessary foundational facts are established; the Court held that the victim’s minority had not been proved and therefore the presumptions could not be invoked.

The Court also held that Evidence Act Section 114A could not support a presumption of rape in the absence of evidence establishing the foundation for the charge.

Relying on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 863, and the authorities discussed there, the Court stated that a birth or school-record entry’s admissibility does not itself prove its contents: its authenticity and the source of the underlying information must be established through evidence.

On an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified in exceptional cases involving compelling circumstances or a perverse judgment; where another reasonable view is possible, the appellate court should respect the acquittal and the strengthened presumption of innocence, as stated with reference to Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67.

The victim’s brother could not recall her date of birth, the birth certificate was neither exhibited nor brought on record, and the investigating officer’s evidence only showed that he had sought verification; no witness was examined to prove her age. The Court therefore upheld the finding that minority was not established, precluding the POCSO presumptions.

On the remaining charges, the brother was in Surat at the relevant time, had not seen the victim with the accused, and could not say how or with whom she had left. The persons said to have informed him about the accused’s custody of the victim and the discovery of her body, as well as the grandmother, were not examined. Although the post-mortem recorded death by poisoning, the evidence did not establish rape, persistent harassment, or that the accused caused the victim to commit suicide.

Given these evidentiary deficiencies and the standard governing appeals against acquittal, the Court found no perversity or basis to interfere.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal entered on 25 March 2026 in Special POCSO Case No. 44 of 2024.