Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ashik Ramjan Ansari, was convicted by the Special Judge at Greater Bombay in POCSO Special Case No.203 of 2016 for offences under Sections 363, 376, 107, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4, 6, and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs.2,000. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, aged 17 years, went missing from her home on 30 January 2016, and her brother lodged an FIR on 1 February 2016 suspecting the appellant. The prosecutrix was traced along with the appellant in Gujarat on 18 March 2016. The prosecution relied on a school leaving certificate showing her date of birth as 5 September 1998, claiming she was a minor at the time of the incident. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the age was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the school leaving certificate was not properly proved as the author was not examined and the original register was not produced. The court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age Determination - Standard of Proof - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 4, 6, 17 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 376, 107, 109 - The court examined the reliability of the school leaving certificate as proof of age, noting that the prosecution failed to examine the author of the document or produce the original register. The court held that the age of the prosecutrix was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. (Paras 1-31) B) Criminal Law - Consent - Minor - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 375 - The court considered the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC where she stated she went with the accused voluntarily and married him. However, since the age was not proved, the issue of consent was not determinative. (Paras 1-31) C) Criminal Law - Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding age and the circumstances of the alleged kidnapping. The appellant was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, and whether the conviction under POCSO Act and IPC was sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge at Gr. Bombay in POCSO Spl. Case No.203 of 2016 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Age determination in POCSO cases
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Benefit of doubt
- Consent of minor
- School leaving certificate as age proof
