In POCSO Burden Never Shifts Unless Prosecution Establishes a Prima Facie Case: Patna High Court

“Acquittal Based on Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Under JJ Act Is Not Perverse…..Burden Never Shifts Unless Prosecution Establishes a Prima Facie Case” - Patna High Court dismissed a challenge to the acquittal of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing absence of age proof, material contradictions in the victim’s testimony, and a plausible view taken by the trial court based on the record. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey concluded that the trial court's verdict was not perverse or unsustainable, and therefore did not warrant appellate interference.

The judgment arises from a case where Respondent No. 2, a neighbour, was accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl. An FIR was lodged four days after the incident. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim—a mandatory requirement for invoking the POCSO Act.

“Failure to Prove Victim’s Minority Is Fatal to the Prosecution Under POCSO”

The High Court found that despite the prosecution's assertion that the victim was a minor, it failed to comply with the mandatory procedure laid out under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Citing the landmark decision in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Court reiterated that the age of a child must be proved through one of the prescribed documents or medical evidence in the absence of all others.

Justice Pandey noted:“In the present case, the medical evidence regarding age or any documentary proof has not been proved and the learned trial court has recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the said ground.”

Further, the photocopy of the birth certificate was neither authenticated nor verified per statutory requirements. The Investigating Officer admitted that no certified copy of the age document was produced, and no verification report was annexed.

“Victim’s Testimony Inconsistent, Witnesses Hearsay, and No Recovery Made”: Trial Court’s View Deemed Plausible

The Court examined the evidence in detail and upheld the trial court’s finding that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were inconsistent with her court testimony. Allegations such as the accused showing obscene videos appeared for the first time during examination-in-chief in court and were absent in her earlier statements.

Additionally, no recovery was made of critical items such as the mobile phone, pornographic video, chocolates, or toothbrush, which were essential to corroborate the victim’s version. The Investigating Officer admitted that no effort was made to recover or trace these items.

“Except PW-1, all the prosecution witnesses were hearsay. The trial court rightly noted that PWs 3, 4, and 5 only deposed what the victim allegedly told them. No independent eyewitness to the incident was found.”

Furthermore, there was unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which raised serious doubts on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

“Appellate Court Cannot Substitute a Plausible View Merely Because Another Is Possible”

Applying the settled principles of appellate interference in acquittal cases, the High Court relied on a series of Supreme Court decisions including Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, Murugesan v. State (2012) 10 SCC 383, and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024 SCC OnLine SC 561).

Justice Pandey observed: “An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused… If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal.”

“The trial Court has taken a plausible view based on the evidence available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.”

The High Court further held that the burden of proof never shifts to the accused unless the prosecution establishes a prima facie case. In this case, the prosecution's failure to meet basic statutory requirements rendered the charge untenable at law.

No Compelling Grounds to Interfere with Acquittal

Reaffirming the principle of presumption of innocence, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal at the admission stage, declaring that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was based on a reasonable and legally sustainable view of the facts.

“The view taken by the trial Court cannot be held to be bad or perverse. Under such circumstances, no case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out.”

The judgment thus reinforces the constitutional and procedural safeguard that acquittal, once rendered, must not be reversed unless there is a manifest miscarriage of justice or perversity in the findings.

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025