“Relationship Was Consensual and Survivor Was Not Proven to Be a Child: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Rape Under POCSO

“Prosecution Failed to Prove Survivor’s Minority as Per Section 94 of JJ Act”— In a significant ruling Delhi High Court set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence awarded to the appellant for alleged rape of his minor cousin. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the age of the survivor beyond reasonable doubt, which was essential for invoking provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Justice Amit Sharma emphasized that in the absence of reliable age proof or ossification test, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, particularly when the survivor had herself admitted the relationship was consensual and initiated at her instance.

The case arose from an FIR dated 30.05.2017, registered after the survivor, aged about 17 per the prosecution's version, delivered a child in BSA Hospital, Delhi. In her initial statement, the survivor accused her cousin, the appellant, of forceful sexual intercourse around July–August 2016, when she claimed he had been residing at her home. The appellant was arrested and charged under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act. He was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

However, the survivor later retracted her allegations of force, admitted the relationship was consensual, and testified that she was born on Holi in March 1998, making her above 18 at the relevant time. The central issue before the High Court was whether the survivor was a “child” under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, thereby rendering her consent immaterial.

"In Absence of Reliable Birth Documents or Ossification Test, Prosecution Cannot Prove Minority"—Court Applies Section 94 of JJ Act

The Court scrutinized the procedure followed for determining the survivor’s age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, holding:

“In the present case… the only document which has been produced on record is a school admission register… not supported by any proof of birth issued by any Corporation or Municipal Authority.” (Para 27)

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, which mandates a hierarchy of documents for age determination—beginning with a matriculation certificate or DOB certificate, failing which an ossification test must be conducted.

“Despite the clear statement given by the survivor that her date of birth was in March 1998… the prosecution did not conduct any ossification test to rebut that claim.” (Para 29)

Thus, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the mandatory standards under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, making it unsafe to treat the survivor as a minor.

“Survivor Clearly Stated She Was Born on Holi in March 1998”—Testimony Contradicted School Records and Parents' Claims

The survivor’s testimony before the Trial Court and under Section 164 CrPC was consistent in asserting her majority. She explicitly stated:

“School main mere janam ki tarikh 03.08.1999 hai… Jo ki galat hai. Mere janam ki sahi tarikh Holi wale din March, 1998 hai.” (Para 20)

She reaffirmed this under cross-examination and denied being under pressure or tutored by the appellant’s family. The Court emphasized:

“The survivor was very specific regarding her birth on the day of Holi in 1998… and despite cross by the learned APP she stood by the same.” (Para 27)

The survivor’s parents (PW-4 and PW-5) gave inconsistent accounts of her date of birth, and no valid birth certificate, affidavit, or school application form was submitted to support the school register’s entry of 03.08.1999.

“Consent Becomes Relevant Once Minority is Not Established”—Court Rejects Conviction Under POCSO

The High Court observed that while consent is immaterial if the survivor is proven to be under 18, it becomes legally relevant where the minority is unproven.

“In the present case, despite the clear statement given by the survivor that the relationship between the appellant and herself was consensual… he has been convicted under the POCSO Act only for the reason that on the date of incident she was less than 18 years of age.” (Para 29)

In her Section 164 CrPC statement, the survivor had stated:

“जो हुआ वो मेरी गलती से हुआ… करण ने मुझे मना किया लेकिन मेरी गलती है कि मैं नहीं मानी… इसलिए मुझे केस नहीं करना।” (Para 19)

The Court also noted that the Trial Court had wrongly framed the charge under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, which is applicable only to children below 12 years. This further vitiated the conviction:

“The appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court under a wrong substantive charge.” (Para 10)

“Prosecution’s Obligation to Prove Minority Not Met; Survivor’s Version Supports the Defence”—Court Acquits Appellant

Justice Amit Sharma held that the prosecution failed to prove its primary burden—that the survivor was a minor at the relevant time. Without documentary proof or medical testing, and with the survivor’s consistent admission of her majority and consent, the conviction could not be sustained:

“The prosecution has failed to discharge its obligation to prove that the survivor was a child in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act.” (Para 30)

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2024 and order on sentence dated 03.10.2024 are set aside and the appellant is acquitted.” (Para 31)

The Court directed the appellant's immediate release if not required in any other case and ordered the judgment to be communicated to the Jail Superintendent.

This judgment reinforces the strict evidentiary requirement for age determination in cases under the POCSO Act and confirms that presumptions of minority cannot override due process. It also underlines that consensual relationships between adults, even if socially disapproved, cannot attract criminal liability without solid proof of legal minority.

Date of Decision: June 3, 2025