Case Note & Summary
The judgment dealt with a criminal appeal preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence for sexual offences against a minor under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The informant, mother of the victim, lodged a complaint on 06.12.2013 alleging that her 13-year-old daughter was repeatedly raped by the accused, a neighbour, between March and May 2013 after luring her with false promises of marriage and employment, resulting in pregnancy. The pregnancy was discovered only after seven months; upon confrontation, the accused's family refused marriage and instead suggested abortion or elimination of the victim. The police registered an FIR under Section 376(2)(h) and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. During investigation, the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, and DNA samples were collected. The victim delivered a female child on 01.02.2014; DNA testing confirmed that the accused was the biological father. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine, with all sentences running concurrently, while no separate punishment was awarded for overlapping sections. The accused appealed, challenging the determination of the victim's age, contending that the absence of an ossification test rendered the conviction unsustainable, and arguing that the delayed FIR indicated a consensual relationship. He alternatively sought leniency based on the time already served. The High Court, on reappreciation of evidence, held that the school admission register and admission form, corroborated by the testimonies of the mother, victim, and headmaster, conclusively proved the victim's date of birth as 19.05.2000, making her below 16 years at the time of the incident. It ruled that documentary proof of age is sufficient and an ossification test is not a legal requirement. Consequently, the victim was a child under the POCSO Act, and her consent was immaterial. The court found the delay in lodging the FIR adequately explained and not fatal, given the circumstances of a minor victim and the initial attempt at settlement. The DNA evidence, establishing paternity, provided scientific corroboration. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence, and declined the plea for reduction of sentence. All sentences were directed to remain concurrent with set-off for the period already undergone.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age of Victim - Proof of Age through School Records - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376(2)(i); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 2(d) - The prosecution relied on testimony of the mother, victim, school headmaster, and documentary evidence (admission register, admission form) to prove the victim's date of birth as 19.05.2000, making her about 13 years and 6 months at the time of the incident. The court held that such reliable documentary evidence is sufficient to establish the minority of the victim; an ossification test is not mandatory. (Paras 9-12) B) Criminal Law - Consent of Minor - Consent Immaterial under POCSO Act - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 2(d), 3, 4, 5, 6 - The defence claimed a consensual relationship and marriage; however, once the victim is proved to be a child below 18 years, her consent becomes legally irrelevant. The court observed that any sexual act with a child constitutes an offence irrespective of consent, thereby rejecting the appellant's defence. (Paras 8, 13) C) Criminal Law - Delay in Filing FIR - Explanation for Delay in Sexual Offences Involving Minors - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - The FIR was lodged about seven months after the incident, only when the victim's pregnancy became apparent. The court accepted the explanation that the mother initially approached the accused's family for marriage and, upon refusal, filed the complaint; delay in such cases involving sexual assault on minors is not fatal if credibly explained. (Paras 6, 8) D) Criminal Law - DNA Evidence - Corroborative Value in Sexual Offence Cases - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - DNA analysis of the appellant, victim, and the child born to the victim established that the appellant is the biological father, corroborating the victim's testimony of repeated sexual intercourse. The court relied on this scientific evidence to support the conviction. (Paras 3, 8) E) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Concurrent Sentences under IPC and POCSO Act - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 5, 6 - The trial court sentenced the appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under each of IPC and POCSO Act, with sentences running concurrently; no separate sentence was imposed for overlapping offences. The High Court upheld the sentence, rejecting the alternative plea for leniency based on the period already undergone. (Paras 1, 7, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the age of the victim girl to be below 18 years (and below 16 years) at the time of incident? Whether consent of the victim is immaterial given her age? Whether delayed FIR and defence of marriage render the prosecution case doubtful?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The conviction under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with concurrent sentences of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine, was confirmed. No modification in sentence was made, and the period already undergone was directed to be set off.
Law Points
- Proof of age through documentary evidence (school records) is sufficient
- ossification test not mandatory
- Consent of minor is immaterial under POCSO Act
- DNA evidence establishes paternity and sexual intercourse
- Delayed FIR explained by disclosure after pregnancy became apparent
- Concurrent sentencing under IPC and POCSO Act allowed
