Proof of Minority in POCSO Requires Corroborative Evidence Beyond Unsubstantiated School Register Entries

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC for allegedly abducting a girl (PW-2) on 27.07.2019 and committing rape on the pretext of marriage

The prosecution alleged the victim was a minor (DOB: 01.08.2005) based on a school Admission-Discharge Register

During the trial, the victim admitted she did not raise any alarm while traveling by bus or staying at various houses with the Appellant

The medical report found a recently torn hymen but no external or internal injuries suggestive of force

The Appellant challenged the conviction, asserting the victim was a consenting adult and her age was not proved

1. Whether the prosecution conclusively established that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident through admissible evidence

2. Whether the sexual act was non-consensual in nature to satisfy the ingredients of Section 376 of the IPC

The Court applied Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the relevancy of entries in public records

It relied on Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006) and Alamelu v. State (2011), which established that school register entries have no evidentiary value to prove age unless the material/source on which the entry was based is proved

Furthermore, under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, a specific hierarchy of documents (Matriculation certificate, then Birth Certificate, then Ossification test) must be followed for age determination

Regarding consent, the Court followed Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952), holding that while conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a victim, it must be "wholly reliable" and free from basic improbabilities

The Court observed that the Headmaster (PW-12) could not specify the document or source used to record the victim's date of birth in the school register, rendering the document legally insufficient to prove minority

Consequently, the higher penalties of the POCSO Act/Section 376(2)(n) IPC regarding minors were inapplicable

On the merits of the rape charge, the Court found the victim’s conduct—traveling publicly by bus and staying in multiple populated areas without raising an alarm or seeking help—to be "wholly unnatural" and suggestive of consent

The medical report (Ex.P/12) corroborated sexual intercourse but failed to show any signs of resistance or use of force

The Court held that the prosecution failed to link the Appellant via DNA/serological evidence, as the FSL report merely confirmed human spermatozoa without specialized matching

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and 20-year sentence, and acquitted the Appellant. The Court directed the Appellant's immediate release and mandated the execution of a personal bond under Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 BNSS)