No Proof of Minority, No Injury Marks: Madhya Pradesh High Court Overturns Conviction In POCSO Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 3/4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was a minor or that the relationship was non-consensual.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen allowed Criminal Appeal No. 2282 of 2024, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, Santosh Yadav.

The appeal challenged the judgment dated January 13, 2023, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Narmadapuram, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2021, which had convicted Yadav and sentenced him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000. Appearing for the appellant, Ms. Smita Varma argued that the conviction rested on shaky foundations, particularly on the question of the victim’s age and the absence of medical corroboration. The State was represented by Deputy Advocate General Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, who opposed the appeal.

At the outset, the bench dismissed as withdrawn an interlocutory application seeking suspension of sentence under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 389 of CrPC), and proceeded to hear the appeal finally with consent of parties.

Central to the court’s reasoning was the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW/1), who stated during deposition that she was 19 to 20 years old at the time of recording her evidence. The court noted that this admission, read in light of the timeline of the incident, suggested that she was a major at the relevant time. Her parents, examined as PW/2 and PW/3, also admitted that she was an adult when the incident occurred.

The bench further scrutinised the prosecution’s reliance on school records to establish age. The school teacher (PW/4) admitted that no documentary proof of date of birth had been furnished at the time of admission. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (AIR 1988 SC 1796), the High court reiterated that entries in a scholar’s register have “no evidentiary value” unless the source of the information and its authenticity are proved. “Merely because the documents… were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved,” the court quoted, emphasising that proof of a document is not proof of the truth of its contents.

Medical evidence too did not bolster the prosecution case. Dr. Shradha (PW/10), who examined the prosecutrix, stated that her vitals were normal and that there were no external or internal injuries suggestive of forceful sexual assault. The DNA report was described as “uninterruptible,” offering no conclusive support to the charge.

Taking these factors cumulatively, the bench observed that “there is no concrete documentary evidence to uphold the conviction” and that the benefit of doubt must enure to the appellant. It noted that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the admissions of the prosecutrix and her parents regarding her age, as well as the lack of medical signs of struggle or assault. In unequivocal terms, the court held that “the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is hereby set aside”.

Allowing the appeal, the High court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, and ordered that the trial court record be returned.

Case Title: Santosh Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Judgment: February 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen