Proof of age is mandatory for conviction under Section 376AB IPC and the POCSO Act.

The Appellant was convicted by the Special PoCSO Court for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 376AB IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the PoCSO Act

The prosecution alleged that between May 10 and May 15, 2020, the Appellant subjected the victim (PW1), a minor girl, to sexual harassment, digital rape, and penetrative sexual assault at his residence

The victim disclosed the incident to her mother (PW3) on May 18 after bloodstains were discovered on her clothes, leading to an FIR on May 19, 2020

The trial court sentenced the Appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of failed proof of the victim’s age and inconsistencies in the medical history

The court primarily applied Section 375 and 376(1) of the IPC regarding rape, and Section 5(m)/6 of the PoCSO Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

It relied on Section 162 Cr.P.C. to exclude school certificates prepared specifically for the police during investigation.

Under Section 222 Cr.P.C., as interpreted in S.M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, the court applied the principle that an accused can be convicted of a "minor offence" (cognate offence with lesser punishment) even if not specifically charged, provided the core ingredients are common.

Regarding medical history, it applied the precedent from Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Bhargavan v. State of Kerala, which establishes that a doctor’s primary duty is treatment, and minor variations in clinical history do not invalidate a victim's testimony.

The Court found the proof of age unsatisfactory. It held that Exhibit PW5/B (a certificate issued by the Principal to the IO) was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. as it was a statement made during investigation and not an original entry from a birth register.

Furthermore, the school affidavit was signed by "Dolly" while the mother's name was "Poornima," creating unresolved doubt about the victim being under 12. Consequently, charges under PoCSO and Section 376AB IPC (which require proof of age <12) could not stand.

However, the Court upheld the underlying allegation of rape. It noted that the victim's testimony (PW1) was consistent regarding the act, corroborated by the medical evidence (MLC) showing a 0.5 cm tear in the fourchette.

The Court rejected the defense regarding the FIR delay, noting the psychological hesitation in reporting sexual crimes. Since the ingredients of Section 375 IPC were proven, the Court invoked Section 222 Cr.P.C. to convict the appellant for the "minor" cognate offence of rape under Section 376(1) IPC .

The Court held the Appellant guilty of the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC and convicted him under Section 376(1) IPC. The conviction under Sections 354 and 354A IPC was confirmed. The substantive sentence was modified from 20 years to the statutory minimum of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC.