Testimony affirming consensual marriage and medical age variation necessitates acquittal in POCSO and rape proceedings.

The informant (PW-1) alleged that on 24.04.2019, the appellant forcibly abducted her minor sister (PW-4) at gunpoint and raped her in a nearby room.

An FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323, 341, and 448 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court, relying on the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, convicted the appellant on 29.11.2022, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction, citing subsequent developments where the victim and her family turned hostile.

1. Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act can be sustained solely based on a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement when the prosecutrix and witnesses turn hostile during trial.

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established the victim was a "child" under the POCSO Act given the margin of error in medical age assessments.

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code regarding rape and Section 4 of the POCSO Act regarding penetrative sexual assault.

Statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are corroborative and not substantive evidence.

Ossification tests allow for a two-year margin of error on either side of the medically assessed age.

Presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act: the onus shifts to the accused only after the prosecution establishes a foundational case.

The High Court found that the prosecution's case collapsed during the trial because the informant (PW-1) and the victim’s parents (PW-2 and PW-5) denied the allegations, stating the victim was in a consensual love affair and had since married the appellant.

The victim (PW-4) testified that she was living in her sasural (in-laws' house) with the appellant and they had a son together.

The Court held that the trial court erred by relying on the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, as it was directly contradicted by the victim's testimony in court.

Regarding the victim's age, the medical assessment (17-19 years) allowed for a margin of error that could place her age at 21, thereby negating the POCSO charges.

Since the foundational facts of the crime were not proven, the statutory presumption of guilt against the accused could not be triggered.

The Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2022 and the order of sentence dated 30.11.2022; the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released from custody forthwith.