POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court partially allowed the appeal of Akula Ramu, setting aside his convictions under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 448 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court sustained his conviction under Section 417 IPC for cheating. Justice K. Surender ruled that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the victim's minority at the time of the alleged offense, which is a prerequisite for invoking the POCSO Act.

The case involved allegations of sexual assault, trespass, and cheating against Akula Ramu. According to the prosecution, Ramu befriended the victim (PW1) and promised to marry her. Despite parental objections, their relationship continued, during which Ramu allegedly trespassed into the victim's house and engaged in sexual activity over a period. The relationship resulted in the victim’s pregnancy, and a complaint was filed after Ramu married another woman. A DNA test confirmed Ramu as the biological father of the child, who later died.

The Special Sessions Court had convicted Ramu under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 448, 417, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, sentencing him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act.

The Court emphasized that proving the victim’s age below 18 years is crucial for charges under the POCSO Act. Justice Surender observed:

“The prosecution relied on a bonafide certificate and age determination certificate, neither of which conclusively established the victim’s age. No birth certificate from the school first attended or municipal records was produced, and an ossification test was not conducted.”

Referring to precedents such as P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023) and Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., the Court held that reliance on documents with unverified or ambiguous origins cannot suffice for age determination. Justice Surender noted:

“The margin of error in medical age determination can range ±2 years. Even if the victim’s stated age is 17 years, accounting for this margin makes her potentially 19 years old, negating the application of the POCSO Act.”

The Court found no evidence to substantiate the charges of rape or criminal trespass. Justice Surender stated:

“The victim did not disclose the alleged forceful intercourse or trespass until her pregnancy was detected. Her testimony indicates consensual intimacy based on the appellant’s promise of marriage, which, upon non-fulfillment, led to the complaint.”

The Court concluded that the delay in reporting and lack of corroborative evidence undermined the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 448 IPC.

The Court upheld Ramu’s conviction under Section 417 IPC for inducing the victim into a sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage. Justice Surender remarked:

“The appellant’s conduct, including physical intimacy and subsequent marriage to another woman, constitutes deceit under Section 417 IPC.”

The High Court set aside the convictions under the POCSO Act and Sections 448 and 376(2)(n) IPC, reducing Ramu’s sentence to the one-year imprisonment imposed under Section 417 IPC. Since Ramu had already served his sentence, the Court directed his immediate release unless required in other cases.

This judgment highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural and evidentiary standards in criminal cases, particularly under the POCSO Act. By emphasizing the need for conclusive proof of minority and distinguishing consensual relationships from statutory violations, the Telangana High Court reaffirms the principles of fairness and justice.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2024