Victim's Age Not Proved, POCSO Offence Not Established: Madras HC Sets Aside Man's Conviction For Allegedly Raping Neighbour On False Promise To Marry

Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim girl to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

“In the absence of the age proof, the charge framed against the appellant under Section 5(l) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, is not made out. Without any evidence, on the side of the prosecution to prove that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her with the knowledge that victim is minor, the charge framed under Section 5(l) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act is not made out. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellant,” the court observed while acquitting the appellant.

The appellant was convicted under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(J)(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. IN default, he was to undergo simple imprisonment of one year.

The case against the appellant was that he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl several times by making a false promise to marry her. Following this, the victim girl became pregnant and based on her complaint, the police registered a case against the appellant.

During the appeal, the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim. It was submitted that the Headmaster of the Madurai Kaveer Nagar Panchayat Middle School had deposed that the victim's date of birth was March 10, 1997, and that he had admitted the victim in fourth standard on June 19, 2008. The appellant submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the entry was made with a proper source of correctness of date of birth.

The court observed that as per Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, in the absence of the SSLC certificate, any document produced by the school authority could be taken as proof of age beyond reasonable doubt provided it is with an authenticated source. The court noted that the same had been reiterated by the Apex Court in Yuvaprakash Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police.

In the present case, the court noted that the headmaster had not deposed that he had made the endorsement either based on the birth certificate or any other authentic document. Thus, the court opined that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim.

The court, thus, allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant. However, the court added that the compensation granted to the victim girl should not be disturbed and any fine amount paid by the appellant must be refunded to him.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr M.Asif Mohammed for Mr G.Kannan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R.Sivakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 40

Case Title: Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State

Case No: Crl.A(MD)No.394 of 2022

Click here to read/download the judgment