01Facts
The Appellant was accused of enticing a minor girl (the victim) by misrepresenting his identity as "Ayan Jain"
p. 3, 4The victim alleged that on 27.05.2023 and 14.07.2023, the Appellant took her to Barpeta and engaged in sexual intercourse, videographing the second instance and later circulating images on social media
p. 4The Trial Court (Special Judge, Chirang) convicted the Appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (20 years RI) and Section 363 IPC (2 years RI)
p. 2The Appellant challenged the conviction, contending the relationship was consensual and the victim was a major based on medical ossification reports
p. 802Issues
i.1. Whether the victim was a minor on the date of the occurrence, and whether external medical evidence regarding age can override a school certificate
p. 9, 11ii.2. Whether the sexual acts between the Appellant and the victim constituted an offense despite the plea of consent
p. 11, 1303Law Applied
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates a hierarchical approach to age determination, prioritizing school/matriculation certificates over medical tests
p. 10P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2024) 17 SCC 684, which established that medical age determination (ossification) is a last resort only in the absence of statutory documents
p. 11State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another (2026) regarding the limited mandate of medical determination of age
p. 12Under the POCSO Act, the consent of a minor is legally immaterial
p. 9Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4Section 6Section 14Section 29Section 30
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 294Section 363Section 376Section 501
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 67
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161Section 162Section 164Section 313
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 94
04Reasoning
The Court rejected the Appellant's reliance on medical evidence (estimating age at 19-21 years) because a valid school certificate (MO-1) showing the victim's date of birth as 20.03.2007 was available and unchallenged
p. 12Applying Section 94 of the JJ Act and the P. Yuvaprakash precedent, the Court held the school record conclusive, rendering the victim a minor (under 17) at the time of the incident
p. 11Consequently, the defense of "consensual relationship" was dismissed as consent is no defense for offenses against minors under POCSO
p. 9The Court found the victim to be a "sterling witness" whose consistent testimony regarding the sexual acts and the Appellant's use of an alias was not shaken during cross-examination
p. 11Procedural discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence (Guwahati vs. Barpeta) were deemed immaterial as they did not dilute the core testimony regarding the acts at Barpeta
p. 1305Holding
The Court answered both issues in the affirmative, holding that the victim's minority was established by the school certificate and her consent was legally irrelevant.
The Gauhati High Court affirmed the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Chirang, maintaining the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC
p. 13, 14The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit
p. 14Original Court PDF
Md Zahangir AlamvsThe State Of Assam And Anr,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
