Late Production of Victim's Age Evidence Without Following Section 173(8) CrPC Procedure Vitiates Trial

The Appellant was accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a girl reported missing by her mother on 13.04.2016.

The Investigating Officer (I/O) filed a charge sheet under Sections 363/376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

During the trial, the survivor (PW-2) testified that she was in a "love relationship" with the Appellant, fled with him voluntarily, and consented to sexual intercourse.

She further admitted to leading the Appellant to believe she was over 18.

Medical evidence showed no signs of struggle or injuries.

At a late stage of the trial (10.02.2020), the I/O seized and introduced a birth certificate as Material Exhibit-10 without filing a supplementary charge sheet.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant, sentencing him to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years.

Section 173(8) of the CrPC, which mandates that evidence from further investigation must be submitted via a supplementary report/charge sheet following specific procedural protocols.

Statement on the doctrine derived from Mariam Fassihuddin v. State regarding the necessity of a prescribed form for supplementary reports.

Vinay Tyagi v. Arshad Ali regarding the practice of seeking court leave for further investigation.

Section 313 of the CrPC, as interpreted in Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, which requires that all incriminating evidence (specifically the birth certificate) must be put to the accused to provide an opportunity for explanation.

The principle from State v. Kaishar Ali regarding the necessity of proving the survivor's age beyond reasonable doubt to attract POCSO/rape charges when consent is apparent.

The High Court found that the I/O’s conduct regarding the birth certificate was procedurally flawed; the I/O seized the document mid-trial after falsely suggesting it was already in her possession.

This deviation from Section 173(8) CrPC meant the document was introduced without a supplementary charge sheet or prior notice to the Appellant.

Crucially, the Trial Court failed to confront the Appellant with this specific piece of evidence during his Section 313 examination, which constitutes a fatal procedural error.

In the absence of admissible proof of age, the Court accepted the survivor's testimony that she represented herself as an adult.

Applying the principle of leanancy toward the accused in criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that since the survivor's consent was "manifestly voluntary," the lack of reliable proof of minority meant the ingredients of the alleged offenses were not established.

The High Court set aside and quashed the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 13.12.2022 and 22.12.2022. The Appellant was ordered to be discharged forthwith from all liabilities.