Inconclusive proof of age and inconsistent victim testimony entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 366/506 of the IPC based on an incident dated March 17, 2015.

The prosecution alleged the accused intimidated the victim (PW2) with a knife at 12:30 AM, took her to a secluded place, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The accused maintained his innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated by police after a drunken altercation and that evidence was fabricated.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 13.12.2021 and the sentencing order dated 30.04.2022.

1. Whether the prosecution established the age of the victim (PW2) as a "child" beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW2) was reliable and consistent enough to prove the guilt of the accused in light of material contradictions and missing witnesses.

Section 6 of the POCSO Act (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Sections 366 (kidnapping/abducting) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act for age determination.

Written certificates provided to police during investigation are hit by the bar of inadmissibility under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

Fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused, regardless of the lack of an explanation by the defense.

The Court found the evidence regarding the victim's age to be "quite unsatisfactory" because while the School Admission Register recorded a birth date making her 11 years old, the victim herself consistently claimed to be 17 years old in her FIR and Section 164 statement.

The Court observed that the Trial Court's daily orders revealed the victim had allegedly run away and married during the trial, contradicting the "child" status suggested by school records.

The Court highlighted significant discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s testimony regarding the time of the incident (ranging from 3:20 PM to 12:30 AM) and noted the unexplained "disappearance" of a key witness, her friend Neha.

Despite FSL results showing a DNA match, the Court reasoned that without a proven age (to negate consent) and given the inconsistencies in the narrative, the prosecution's case failed to meet the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and ordered to be set at liberty.