Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court

“When the Best Evidence on Age Is Withheld, Adverse Inference Must Follow” – In a judgment that reaffirms the foundational importance of proving the prosecutrix’s minority in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Rajasthan High Court acquitted Lajendra Singh @ Lali, who was previously convicted of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The Division Bench of Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Chandra Shekhar Sharma found that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor, which was a core requirement for sustaining the conviction under the POCSO Act. This, the Court held, vitiated the entire prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

“Only relying on a mark-sheet, while suppressing primary school records, is unacceptable”

The prosecution’s case rested on a Secondary Board mark-sheet, which stated the prosecutrix’s date of birth as 20.02.1999. However, this date was contradicted by other government-issued documents, such as her Aadhaar card and Bhamasha card, which were prepared at her own instance and contained inconsistent details.

Crucially, both parents of the prosecutrix admitted in court that she was first admitted to a school at 1-B Bavriyo Ki Dhani. Yet, no record from this first school was collected or produced during investigation.

The Court sharply criticised the investigating officers, noting:

“Neither of the Investigating Officers made any inquiry from the first school, nor attempted to secure the admission documents. This deliberate omission indicates suppression of vital material, which could have disclosed the prosecutrix’s real age.”

“Suppression of best evidence gives rise to adverse inference”

Applying the principle of adverse inference under criminal jurisprudence, the Court stated:

“The earliest admission record assumes determinative significance when contradictory material exists. Suppression of the best available evidence relating to age gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution.”

This omission, coupled with the admission of the prosecutrix that she got her Aadhar card made herself, and the parents’ evasion on date of birth questions, showed an attempt to avoid placing the full factual matrix before the Court.

The Court held that in the absence of credible and consistent proof of minority, the aggravated charges under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act could not be sustained.

“In criminal trials, where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail. We are therefore unable to hold that the minority of the prosecutrix stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Failure to Establish Minority Dislodges the Statutory Presumption Under POCSO”

The POCSO Act provides a stringent framework for offences against children, but its application is contingent upon proving the prosecutrix was under 18 years of age at the time of the incident.

The Court clarified:

“The statutory protection under POCSO is triggered only when the victim is a child as defined. If that threshold fact is not established, the rigour of POCSO cannot be invoked.”

Thus, once the Court found that the minority of the prosecutrix was not proved, the entire superstructure of the POCSO prosecution collapsed.

The High Court ultimately held that failure to prove the prosecutrix's age beyond reasonable doubt was fatal to the prosecution case, especially where the evidence itself was not just contradictory but deliberately incomplete.

Setting aside the conviction, the Court acquitted the appellant, stating:

“Proof of age is not a procedural formality—it is a substantive foundation of the charge. In its absence, no conviction under POCSO can stand.”

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026