Man acquitted in POCSO case after Madras High Court finds school records failed to reliably prove victim’s age

The prosecution alleged that on 28 August 2020 the appellant took the victim from Krishnagiri to Bengaluru, married her by tying a thaali, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault.

The victim’s stated date of birth was 2 February 2003.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 5(l) read with Section 6(l) of the POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC, sentencing him to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC.

On appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the appellant challenged, among other matters, proof of the victim’s age and the findings concerning consent and his belief about her age.

The High Court considered the victim’s differing accounts of whether the relationship and departure were voluntary, and the prosecution’s failure to produce the school Admission Register.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child on the date of the occurrence.

Whether the evidence established the charged offences, having regard to the victim’s inconsistent accounts and the appellant’s claimed belief that she was an adult.

The Court considered Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC, the provisions under which the appellant had been convicted.

It stated that a child’s consent is immaterial if the victim was a minor at the time of the occurrence.

It also applied Section 79 IPC, concluding that the appellant’s act would be covered by that general exception given the considerable doubt about the victim’s age and the claimed belief that she was over eighteen.

The Court further assessed whether the victim’s testimony, in light of her contradictory accounts, could safely sustain a conviction.

The Court found that the victim’s accounts differed: although she testified that she was forced to go with the appellant and was subjected to forcible intercourse, her earlier statements described a consensual relationship and voluntary departure.

As to age, the prosecution relied on a Bonafide Certificate issued during the investigation, but did not produce the underlying Admission Register; the Transfer Certificate referred to in the evidence was also not marked, and the Headmistress acknowledged a discrepancy in the period of study.

In those circumstances, the Court found the victim’s age insufficiently established and considered the appellant’s claimed belief that she was an adult in applying Section 79 IPC.

It also held that the victim’s inconsistent accounts made it unsafe to base a conviction on her testimony alone.

It directed that any fine paid be refunded and that any bail bond executed stand discharged.