School register entries without foundational evidence and uncorroborated victim testimony fail to sustain POCSO conviction.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 366 of the IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly abducting and repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor victim

The prosecution alleged the victim (born 28.05.2005) left her home on 30.08.2021 to join the appellant

They were recovered from Gariyaband, where they had purportedly solemnized a marriage in a temple

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor and that the physical relations were consensual, as evidenced by her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement

1. Whether the prosecution conclusively established that the victim was below 18 years of age (a minor) at the time of the alleged incident

2. Whether the appellant committed the offence of rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim

The Court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding the hierarchy and probative value of age-determination evidence

It relied on Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Alamelu v. State, which establish that entries in a school register have no evidentiary value unless the material or the person who provided the date of birth is examined

the Court emphasized the principle from Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a victim, it must be reliable and free from basic infirmities

The Court found the age determination flawed because the Headmaster (PW-4) admitted he was not the author of the school entry and could not state its basis

The victim’s father (PW-2) admitted he was illiterate and unaware of the actual date of birth

The Court noted the failure to conduct a radiological exam or examine the mother further weakened the minority claim

Regarding the assault, the Court observed that the victim stayed with the appellant for days without protest, and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement admitted the appellant used no force

Medical evidence was inconclusive as the ruptured hymen lacked signs of recent trauma, and the FSL report was negative for semen/spermatozoa

The Court reasoned that these material inconsistencies and the lack of forensic corroboration rendered the victim's testimony unreliable

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2024 was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges

The Court directed the appellant’s immediate release and ordered the execution of a personal bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (Section 481 BNSS)