Unsubstantiated school-register entries cannot conclusively prove a victim’s minority under POCSO.

The appellant was prosecuted for allegedly taking the victim, stated by the prosecution to be approximately 14 years old, from her village on two occasions in July 2019 and sexually assaulting her while keeping her at his house and later in a rented room.

The victim’s mother lodged the report on 22.12.2019, leading to registration of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution relied, inter alia, on the victim’s testimony, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, medical reports, the school Admission and Withdrawal Register, and her Class VIII mark-sheet recording her date of birth as 16.07.2005.

The trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to concurrent terms of two years, five years and twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively.

The appellant challenged the conviction, principally contending that the prosecution had failed to prove the victim’s minority and that her testimony was not reliable or corroborated by medical or forensic evidence.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident, so as to attract the POCSO Act?

Whether the evidence established the offences of kidnapping, abduction and sexual assault against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court considered the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with the appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

An entry in a public or official register may be admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, but its probative value depends upon proof of the source and basis of the entry.

Relying on Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, and Alamelu v. State, the Court held that a school record cannot conclusively establish age where the person who supplied the date of birth or made the entry is not examined and the foundational material is not proved.

The Court also relied on Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, which recognise the evidentiary hierarchy for age determination and require reliance on credible school, matriculation or birth records before resorting to medical assessment.

Conviction for sexual assault may rest solely on the victim’s testimony if it is wholly reliable and inspires confidence; however, corroboration becomes material where the testimony suffers from material infirmities, omissions or improbabilities.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt must enure to the accused’s benefit.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the victim’s school register and mark-sheet recorded her date of birth as 16.07.2005, the Assistant Teacher who testified about the register admitted that he had neither made the entry nor knew the document or source on which it was based.

The parents also lacked personal knowledge of her exact date of birth, and no birth certificate, contemporaneous public record or medical age-determination evidence was produced.

The Court therefore held that the school documents, by themselves, could not conclusively prove minority.

The victim’s testimony regarding forcible intercourse was also found insufficiently reliable: she travelled with the appellant without raising an alarm, encountered several persons on the way, remained with him for a considerable period, and did not disclose the alleged assault despite opportunities to do so.

The medical examination disclosed an old torn hymen and previous sexual intercourse, but no external or internal injuries or physical signs of forcible intercourse; the FSL report detected no semen stains or spermatozoa.

While these circumstances were not treated as independently conclusive, the Court held that, cumulatively with the omissions, inconsistencies and conduct attributed to the victim, they created a reasonable doubt that her testimony was sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction.

It held that the prosecution had not proved that the victim was below 18 years of age and had also failed to establish the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2022 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

As he was reportedly in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another case.

He was further directed to furnish a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.