Medical evidence contradicting the prosecutrix’s timeline and unreliable age proof warrant upholding an acquittal.

The appellant (prosecutrix/complainant) challenged the judgment dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, which acquitted Respondent No. 2 of charges under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act

The prosecution alleged that the respondent established physical relations with the prosecutrix in April 2022, resulting in a pregnancy discovered in August 2022 when the fetus was found to be stillborn at seven months

An abortion was subsequently performed, and the fetus was preserved for DNA testing

During the trial, the prosecution relied on a school discharge register (Ex-P/12) to establish that the victim was a minor (D.O.B. 18.04.2006)

However, both the prosecutrix and her father refused to consent to a DNA test

1. Whether the prosecution proved the minority of the prosecutrix beyond a reasonable doubt using the school register in the absence of a primary birth certificate

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence to sustain a conviction

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal where a plausible view has been taken by the Trial Court

The court applied Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that while school registers are admissible, their evidentiary value is limited if the underlying material for the age entry is not produced

It relied on Alamelu v. State (2011) and Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., which establish that the same standard of proof for age applies in both civil and criminal proceedings to prevent unjust convictions

Regarding the testimony of the prosecutrix, the court cited Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat and State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla (2025), holding that while conviction can rest on a sole testimony, it must inspire "absolute confidence"

The court applied the principles from Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) regarding the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittals

The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide a birth certificate or primary school records, and the Principal (PW-3) admitted she did not make the entry in the register herself

Critically, the court noted a medical impossibility in the prosecution’s timeline: the medical expert (PW-4) testified that the prosecutrix likely conceived in February 2022 based on the 27-week gestation of the fetus in August

The prosecutrix (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that she never met the accused prior to May 2022 and initially alleged the incident occurred in April 2022

The court found the refusal of the prosecutrix and her father to undergo DNA testing as a significant factor that rendered their conduct suspicious

The court reasoned that since the medical evidence contradicted the victim's testimony and the refusal of DNA evidence prevented the identification of the biological father, the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between the allegation and the facts

It held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the prosecutrix's testimony lacked credibility, was contradicted by medical timelines, and the evidence regarding her age was insufficient

Following the Mallappa precedent, the court concluded that the Trial Court had taken a legally plausible view, and in the absence of patent illegality or perversity, there was no ground for reversal