POCSO Charges Fail Without Proof of Minority: Karnataka High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case

“Only as an afterthought, in order to file complaint under POCSO, Exhibit P8-birth certificate was produced”— In a powerful reaffirmation of procedural safeguards in criminal law, the Karnataka High Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of repeatedly raping a girl allegedly below 18, holding that “the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority in accordance with law, thereby rendering POCSO provisions inapplicable.”

Justice G. Basavaraja, critically examined the trial court's conviction under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, ultimately overturning the verdict due to grave lapses in age determination and lack of evidence of coercion or force.

“Not Even One Legally Admissible Document to Prove the Victim’s Age”—Court Applies Supreme Court’s Guidelines in P. Yuvaprakash

At the heart of the appeal was the question whether the girl qualified as a “child” under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, which requires the prosecution to prove the victim was below 18 years on the date of the alleged offence. The Court ruled that the prosecution utterly failed to meet this burden.

Justice Basavaraja cited the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in P. Yuvaprakash v. State [2023 SCC OnLine SC 846], which mandates strict adherence to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for determining age:

“Only in the absence of a school certificate or matriculation record, can the prosecution rely on a birth certificate issued by municipal authorities, and only thereafter can medical evidence such as ossification tests be used.”

However, in the present case, the birth certificate (Exhibit P8) showed the victim’s date of birth as 7th April 2001, but it was registered belatedly on 4th May 2017, just four months before the complaint was filed.

The Court observed: “It is crystal clear that only for the purpose of filing a complaint under the POCSO Act, the birth certificate was obtained by filing a petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. Neither the court order, nor the petition, nor the registrar’s endorsement of non-registration were produced in court.”

Moreover, the victim’s parents (PWs 2 and 3) admitted in cross-examination that they did not know her exact date of birth, and no SSLC marks card or school admission register was produced. A transfer certificate issued after charge-sheeting was held inadmissible, especially since it was procured without invoking Section 173(8) CrPC, which governs post-charge-sheet evidence collection.

“The trial court committed a serious error in placing reliance on Exhibit P8. In the absence of any admissible record or explanation, this document was nothing more than a litigation tool fabricated after the fact.”

Further, the medical officer failed to conduct any ossification test or determine age in compliance with Section 164A CrPC, compounding the procedural violation.

In light of these failures, the Court drew an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that “evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the prosecution.”

“Even If Intercourse Occurred, It Was Consensual”—Court Rejects Rape Allegation Due to Delay and Lack of Force

On the question of whether rape occurred under Section 375 IPC, the Court found that the prosecution’s own case pointed to a consensual relationship, rendering the statutory offence unsustainable in absence of proof of minority.

The alleged sexual relationship began in September 2015, but the complaint was filed two years later in September 2017, after the accused allegedly refused to marry the victim. The victim’s medical examination confirmed no signs of recent sexual activity or injuries, and the doctor (Dr. Sowmya) recorded that the last intercourse occurred in December 2015, nearly two years before the examination.

The victim’s statement recorded in Exhibit P2 revealed: “They used to meet at the victim’s home when nobody was there and used to have sexual intercourse every 3-4 days. The same continued till December 2015. After that, Isak left to Bangalore for work. They had phone contact throughout, and he was reassuring her that he would marry her. Since one month, he refused to marry her, so she gave the complaint.”

The Court held: “Absolutely there is no evidence of force or coercion. Even if sexual intercourse occurred, it was clearly consensual. In the absence of proof of the victim’s minority, the essential ingredients of Section 375 IPC are not satisfied.”

Trial Court’s Judgment Based on Inadequate Appreciation of Evidence—Conviction Unsustainable

The Court held that the trial court wrongly convicted the appellant based on unreliable and inadmissible evidence, ignoring the Supreme Court’s guidelines on age determination and failing to address critical delays and contradictions.

Justice Basavaraja observed: “The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a child under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. It has also failed to prove the offence of rape under IPC. The conviction and sentence are therefore not sustainable under law.”

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 03rd October 2018 passed in Special Case No. 172 of 2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, and directed that: “The accused shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.”

Prosecution Must Establish Age With Admissible Records, Especially in POCSO Trials

This judgment sends a strong signal to investigating agencies and trial courts that POCSO cases demand rigorous proof of the victim’s age, in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act and Supreme Court precedents. Mere production of a post-dated birth certificate without legal backing cannot substitute statutory compliance. Additionally, where evidence points to a consensual relationship and the victim is not shown to be a child, rape charges under Section 376 IPC fail as well.

Date of Decision: 04 December 2025