Upper Age Limit of Medical Assessment and Victim’s Testimony Determining Majority Vitiates POCSO Conviction

The informant (P.W.1) filed a police report alleging that the appellant enticed his minor daughter (P.W.3) and took her to Bangalore

While the prosecution relied on a school certificate dated 07.05.2016 indicating the victim was a minor (DOB 13.01.2002), the victim testified that she was born in January 2000, making her an adult at the time of the incident

She stated she left with the appellant of her own will due to a romantic relationship opposed by her parents

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 376 IPC, and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 7 years R.I.

The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of the victim’s majority

1. Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC

2. Whether the conviction can be sustained when the medical evidence and victim’s testimony contradict the prosecution's claim of minority

The court applied Sections 363 (Kidnapping) and 376 (Rape) of the IPC, and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which specifically govern sexual offenses against children

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that when a medical board provides an age range, the "upper side" or higher age limit should be considered in favor of the accused, especially when corroborated by the victim's own testimony

It also scrutinized the reliability of school records under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act framework, noting that a lack of verification of school registers or examination of the school principal renders such certificates unreliable

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reliance on the lower side of the medical assessment to be erroneous. A Medical Board (P.W.7) assessed the victim’s age between 17-18 years

The Court reasoned that in cases of age ambiguity, the benefit of the upper age limit must be given, which in this case (18 years) aligned with the victim’s own testimony

The court noted significant lacunae in the investigation: the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) failed to verify school registers or examine the Principal, making the school certificate regarding the 2002 birth date suspicious and improbable

Since the victim was determined to be a major who exercised her right to choose a partner, the essential element of "lack of consent" or "taking from lawful guardianship" was absent

Consequently, the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC was bad in law. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2019, and discharged the appellant from his bail bonds