Uncorroborated school records based on oral parental statements are insufficient to prove age under the PoCSO Act.

The Appellant (Shambhu) was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the alleged repeated sexual assault and criminal intimidation of his minor sister-in-law (PW1) between 2015 and 2016.

The prosecution's case rested on the FIS/FIR (Ext. PW1/B) and a Section 164 statement (Ext. PX5) where PW1 initially alleged non-consensual relations and threats.

However, during the trial, PW1 resiled from these statements, testifying that the relationship was consensual and that she was a major (above 18 years) at the time of the incident.

PW4 (the mother) also testified that she had deliberately understated PW1's age in school records to secure admission.

The Appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of failed proof of the victim's minority and the consensual nature of the relationship.

The Court applied Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding appeals from convictions.

It relied on Section 375 of the IPC (definition of rape) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

Regarding evidence, the Court applied Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits the use of statements made to police during investigations as substantive evidence, rendering the school’s age certificate (Ext. PW6/C) inadmissible.

The Court adhered to the principle that a conviction cannot stand if the prosecution fails to prove the age of the victim in POCSO cases or the lack of consent in IPC rape cases involving adults.

The Court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the victim's age to be unreliable. The school Principal (PW6) admitted that the date of birth in the register (08.03.2004) was based solely on oral statements by parents without documentary proof.

This was further undermined by the mother (PW4), who admitted to providing a false, younger age to the school.

The age certificate (Ext. PW6/C) was discarded as it was prepared for the IO during investigation, violating Section 162 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, without credible birth or medical records, the victim's minority was not established.

On the merits of the assault, the Court noted that PW1 consistently testified during the trial that the relations were consensual and denied any threats or force.

Since the victim claimed to be an adult and a consenting party, and the prosecution failed to rebut this with independent evidence, the essential ingredients of Sections 375 IPC and 6 POCSO Act remained unproven.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 12.12.2019 was set aside, the Appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., and was ordered to be set at liberty immediately.