SSLC Book and School Certificates constitute conclusive proof of age for minor victims under POCSO Act.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Manjeri, for multiple sexual offences

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who ran a dance institution, subjected the minor victim (PW2) to aggravated sexual assault on 01.03.2014 and 04.03.2014

Consequently, the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 05.12.2014

DNA profiling (Ext. P22) confirmed the appellant as the biological father of the child

The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of lack of proof regarding the victim's minority and a claim of a consensual relationship

The Court applied Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC regarding repeated sexual assault and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault

Regarding age determination, the Court relied on Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, as interpreted in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, which establishes a hierarchy of evidence: (1) Matriculation/equivalent certificate, (2) Date of birth from the first school attended, and (3) Birth certificate from a local authority

It also followed Yuvaprakash P v. State, affirming that ossification tests/medical evidence are only secondary to the aforementioned documents

The court applied Biju v. State of Kerala, which holds that even unchallenged oral testimony of the mother can be reliable proof of age under the Evidence Act

The Court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the victim's age, noting that the prosecution produced the victim’s original SSLC book (Ext. P1) and an extract from the school admission register (Ext. P6) through PW6

Under the rule of law established in Jarnail Singh, the SSLC book is considered an "equivalent to matriculation" certificate and serves as the highest-rated option for conclusive proof of age

Since the victim was proved to be under 18 years (born 05.09.1997), the Court held that the question of "consent" was legally irrelevant

The Court found the testimony of the victim (PW2) to be of "sterling quality," supported by her parents (PW1, PW3) and scientific evidence, specifically DNA profiling which unequivocally linked the appellant to the victim's child

The Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 for each of the primary offences under the POCSO Act, as well as the conviction under Section 23 of the JJ Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Special Court was confirmed.