Reliability of school records for age determination and mandatory minimum sentencing under the POCSO Act.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 20.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Nagda, Ujjain, which convicted him for an incident occurring on 22.03.2023

The prosecution alleged that while the 16-year-old victim (PW-1) was collecting fodder, the appellant committed non-penetrative sexual assault by pressing her chest and subsequently offering her ₹100 to remain silent

The appellant pleaded not guilty, claiming false implication due to a dispute regarding the victim's goats grazing in his field

The trial court sentenced the appellant to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8/7 of the POCSO Act

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the victim at the time of the incident

2. Whether the testimony of the victim and corroborating evidence were sufficient to sustain the conviction despite minor contradictions and the defense of personal enmity

3. Whether the sentence awarded by the trial court was proportionate to the offense

The court applied Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which define and prescribe punishment for sexual assault

The court invoked the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes the guilt of the accused once certain fundamental facts are proved by the prosecution

Regarding the age of the victim, the court relied on the principle of ante litem motam (statements made before the controversy) concerning school records

The Court found the victim’s testimony (PW-1) to be reliable and corroborated by the prompt filing of the FIR

It rejected the appellant's defense of false implication, noting that a young girl is unlikely to make such serious allegations over a trivial dispute regarding goats

Regarding the victim's age, the Court accepted the testimony of the Head Master (PW-3) and school registers (Ex.P/6), as no evidence of fabrication was presented during cross-examination

The Court held that the prosecution established the fundamental facts of the assault, thereby triggering the Section 29 POCSO presumption, which the appellant failed to rebut

However, considering the lack of criminal antecedents and the circumstances, the Court found the 4-year sentence slightly excessive

the court answered the issues by holding the victim was a minor (16 years and 5 months) at the time of the incident and that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

The sentence of 4 years R.I. was reduced to the statutory minimum of 3 years R.I. for each count, to run concurrently, while maintaining the fine of ₹100 per count