Failure to Prove Victim's Age and Delay in FIR Fatal to Prosecution Under POCSO Act: Madras High Court Acquits

“Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized in Absence of Proof of Minority”, Madras High Court in a reportable judgment delivered by Justice Sunder Mohan, set aside the conviction of a man charged with kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the IPC and POCSO Act, citing critical lapses in the prosecution's case — including the failure to prove the victim’s minority and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. The Court held that the “evidence suggests a consensual relationship” and not an offence of kidnapping or rape under law.

The appeal was filed under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, wherein the appellant (A1) was sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act and 10 years under Section 366 IPC, for allegedly kidnapping and committing penetrative sexual assault on a girl purportedly aged 17 years and 10 months at the time of occurrence.

Court Slams Laxity in Proving Victim’s Age: “Certificate Not Based on Verified Records”

One of the most pivotal findings of the Court was the failure of the prosecution to prove the age of the victim in the manner required under law. The Prosecution relied on a certificate issued by the Headmaster of a school (PW8), showing the victim’s date of birth as 30.06.2002.

However, the Court critically noted that:

“The Headmaster [PW8] admitted in his cross-examination that he had not verified either the birth certificate or the admission register before issuing the said certificate.”

Justice Sunder Mohan further observed:

“The certificate issued by PW8 is of no consequence... The prosecution has also not collected the admission register which PW8 claims to have verified.”

The Court was also unimpressed by the omission of more authentic documents such as the victim’s matriculation certificate, 10th or 12th marksheets, or college records, despite it being admitted that the victim was in her second year of college.

Delay in Filing Complaint Not Explained — Serious Contradictions in Testimony of Victim and Mother

Another significant factor that weighed in favour of the appellant was the two-month delay in lodging the FIR.

The incident was alleged to have occurred on 15.06.2020, but the complaint [Ex.P1] was filed only on 06.08.2020. The Court pointed out glaring contradictions:

“While the victim claimed she informed her mother on the very same day, PW11 — her mother — deposed that she had lodged the complaint immediately, which contradicts the record.”

This discrepancy, the Court held, was not a minor lapse, but rather a material contradiction that raised a serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story.

Love Affair Spanning Two Years — Evidence Indicates Consensual Relationship, Not Force

The Court gave particular attention to the admissions made by the victim herself (PW1) during cross-examination. She candidly admitted that she had a two-year love affair with the appellant and went to a remote place to meet him voluntarily.

“She also stated that she refused to go with her grandmother when asked to return. Her conduct, as per her own deposition, is inconsistent with the allegation of force or coercion.”

Referring to the contradictions in her versions — including whether she stayed in the appellant’s house or at a friend’s house, and whether she was “abandoned” or returned with him — the Court concluded that:

“The evidence therefore suggests that it is a case of relationship that turned sour, since the appellant could not get married to the victim.”

Use of POCSO Provisions Questioned — “Possibility of False Projection of Age and Date of Occurrence”

In a telling observation that questions the misuse of stringent provisions under the POCSO Act, the Court said:

“The facts raise a reasonable suspicion that both the date of occurrence and the date of birth have been falsely stated only to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act.”

The judgment emphasized the high standard of proof required under criminal law and particularly under special statutes like the POCSO Act:

“Prosecution has neither established the date of birth of the victim nor the date of occurrence and consequently, its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Conviction Set Aside — Appellant Acquitted of All Charges

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 366 IPC and Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act. The Court directed that any fine amount paid be refunded and the bail bond be discharged.

“The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/A1 vide judgment dated 22.02.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur in Spl.SC.37 of 2020, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges.”

Date of Decision: 02 February 2026