POCSO conviction unsustainable absent statutory proof of age and consistent ocular-medical evidence.

The prosecution alleged that on February 24, 2021, the victim boy (PW-1) was lured by the appellant (Md. Alam) and another accused with promises of work and education

The victim was taken to the appellant's house, where the accused allegedly committed unnatural sexual offences (sodomy) under the influence of alcohol

The victim claimed he was returned to a shop the next morning and disclosed the incident to family after failing to bear the pain

A written information was purportedly sent on February 26, 2021, but the FIR was registered on March 5, 2021, showing a nine-day delay

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 377/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this, citing false implication due to legal enmity and a failure to prove the victim's age

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established that the victim was a "child" under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act in accordance with the mandatory procedures for age determination

2. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence were reliable enough to sustain a conviction, or if they were marred by fatal contradictions

3. Whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act were attracted in the present case

The court primarily applied Section 377 of the IPC regarding unnatural offences and Section 6 of the POCSO Act concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault

It emphasized the necessity of age determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which requires specific documentary evidence or medical tests to define a "child" under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act

The court further examined Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act regarding the presumption of guilt, noting that such presumptions do not dispense with the prosecution's initial burden to prove foundational facts or the accused’s right to the presumption of innocence

The High Court found the prosecution's case structurally weak on multiple fronts. First, regarding age, the court noted that the Investigating Officer (PW-5) failed to verify the victim's age through school records or medical ossification tests

There were contradictions regarding the victim's education (Class IV vs. Class VIII), and since the mandatory scheme of the JJ Act was ignored, the POCSO charges could not stand

Second, the medical evidence was deemed inconclusive; PW-2 (the doctor) found "fresh blood" within 6 hours of examination, which contradicted the alleged timeline of the incident occurring 18-19 hours prior

The doctor admitted he did not check the source of the blood and classified it only as a "suspected" case

Third, the court highlighted significant contradictions between the victim (PW-1) and his mother (PW-3) regarding how the complaint was written and who accompanied the victim to the hospital

Finally, the court noted the defense's evidence of prior litigation enmity (Title Suits) between the appellant (an Advocate) and parties connected to the informant, suggesting a motive for false implication

Consequently, the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 were not attracted. The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated April 25, 2023, and the order of sentence dated May 15, 2023. The appellant was acquitted of all charges on the basis of benefit of doubt and ordered to be released forthwith