Victim’s credible testimony and documented pregnancy establish rape notwithstanding lack of DNA evidence or age certificates.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 315 (act done with intent to prevent child being born alive) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The victim (a minor neighbour) alleged that in April 2018 (Chaitra), the appellant forcibly raped her while her parents were harvesting his fields.

She became pregnant and the appellant allegedly took her for an abortion on 06.07.2018 but fled when her family intervened.

The victim subsequently gave birth to a child who later died.

The appellant challenged the conviction citing a delay of 4-5 months in lodging the FIR, lack of DNA evidence, and failure to strictly prove the victim’s age.

The court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates a hierarchy of evidence for age determination: first, school/matriculation certificates; second, municipal/panchayat birth certificates; and only in their absence, medical ossification tests.

It relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, which extends these JJ Act procedures to victims.

The court also cited Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the "sterling witness" standard.

Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, J&K, establishing a two-year margin of error for medical age tests.

Section 42 of the POCSO Act was applied to determine whether IPC or POCSO sentences should prevail based on the "greater in degree" principle.

The Court found the delay in FIR was satisfactorily explained by the victim’s fear of the appellant and her marginalized socio-economic status.

Although no DNA test was conducted due to the infant's death, the victim was deemed a "sterling witness" because her core testimony remained unassailable and was corroborated by medical evidence confirming pregnancy.

Regarding age, the Court noted the absence of primary school records and birth certificates.

The medical officer estimated the age at "about 15 years". Applying the two-year margin of error from Jaya Mala, the Court concluded the victim could have been over 16 but remained under 18, thus maintaining the POCSO Act's applicability but potentially mitigating the sentence.

Crucially, the Court noted the 2018 IPC amendment (increasing the minimum sentence to 10 years) took effect on 21.04.2018; however, since the offense occurred during "Chaitra" (ending 21.04.2018), the un-amended Section 376 IPC (7-year minimum) was applicable.

The sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone (approximately 7 years and 9 months), considering the appellant’s clean antecedents and family responsibilities; the fine remained unchanged and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.