Court’s Decision
The Sikkim High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and twenty-year sentence under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the appellant. The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case, and ordered the refund of fines paid. The acquittal was based on failure to prove the victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt, contradictions in medical evidence regarding the gestational age, and lack of “sterling quality” evidence from the prosecution.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that the victim, stated to be around sixteen years old, had a sexual relationship with the appellant in a hotel room in November 2021 after meeting him on Facebook. The victim suffered a miscarriage in January 2022, leading to an FIR being filed by her sister. The appellant was charged under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(1) IPC. The prosecution relied on witness statements from the victim’s sisters and medical reports to prove the allegations, while the appellant denied the charges, claiming false implication.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the victim’s minority (below 18 years) beyond reasonable doubt under POCSO Act requirements.
- Whether the prosecution established the appellant’s role in the pregnancy and alleged sexual assault.
- Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- The victim’s age was not proven through reliable documents as required under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, making the charge under POCSO unsustainable.
- Medical evidence showed a twenty-two-week pregnancy in January 2022, contradicting the victim’s claim of intercourse in November 2021, which would have indicated an eight-week pregnancy.
- The evidence lacked consistency, and the appellant had been falsely implicated, warranting acquittal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution contended that:
- The victim’s date of birth was 28-05-2005, as supported by her school records, establishing her as a minor at the time of the offence.
- The victim’s statements and her sisters’ evidence supported the allegation of sexual intercourse and subsequent pregnancy, with minor contradictions not affecting the prosecution’s case.
- Consent was irrelevant under the POCSO Act due to the victim’s minority, justifying the conviction.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined the requirements for proving the age of the victim under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the need for reliable documentary evidence or parental testimony. It noted that school records lacked authentication and had discrepancies regarding the father’s name. The court referred to principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra (2006) and Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010), emphasizing that unimpeachable evidence, preferably from parents and authenticated documents, is necessary to establish the age in such cases.
Precedent Analysis
- Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra (2006): Established that parental testimony supported by authentic documents is the best proof of age.
- Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010): Stressed that school records require authentication and that unimpeachable evidence prevails over unverified documents.
- Cho Mingur Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2021): The court rejected the victim’s testimony for lack of reliability in determining the circumstances of her pregnancy.
These precedents reinforced that age and identity require strict proof beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offences under POCSO.
Court’s Reasoning
The court noted:
- The victim’s age was not proven through reliable evidence, as her school record had discrepancies, and no parent was examined.
- The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s timeline, showing a pregnancy of twenty-two weeks when it should have indicated eight weeks if the victim’s version was accurate.
- The DNA or biological evidence linking the appellant to the pregnancy was absent.
- The evidence did not meet the “sterling quality” standard required in such cases, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Sikkim High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under the POCSO Act and IPC, acquitted the appellant, ordered his immediate release, and directed the refund of the fine deposited. The court underscored the necessity of strict proof in cases involving serious offences under child sexual offences laws.
Implications
- Reaffirms the requirement of strict and reliable proof of the victim’s age in POCSO cases.
- Reinforces the need for consistency in medical evidence with the prosecution’s timeline in sexual offences.
- Demonstrates the high evidentiary standard required to uphold convictions under serious criminal charges.
Brief on Referred Cases
- Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra (2006): Clarified the need for parental testimony and authenticated documents to establish age.
- Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010): Established the standard of proof for authenticity of age-related documents.
- Cho Mingur Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2021): The court rejected uncorroborated victim testimony in sexual offence cases where evidence lacked reliability.
These cases were used to support the court’s finding that the prosecution had not proven the victim’s age or the appellant’s role in the pregnancy beyond reasonable doubt.
FAQs
1. What was the key reason for acquittal in this POCSO case?
The failure to prove the victim’s minority and inconsistencies in medical evidence regarding the pregnancy’s gestational age led to the appellant’s acquittal.
2. What does this judgment imply about evidence standards under the POCSO Act?
It underscores that the prosecution must prove the victim’s age with reliable documentary evidence or parental testimony, and any doubt benefits the accused.
3. Does consent matter under the POCSO Act if the victim is a minor?
Legally, consent is irrelevant if the victim is proven to be a minor; however, proving minority is crucial for the application of the POCSO Act.