POCSO Conviction Quashed As Prosecution Failed To Prove Age Of Prosecutrix: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the age of the prosecutrix and that the evidence on record pointed towards a consensual relationship between two adults.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh allowed the criminal appeal filed by Munnaram against a judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Singrauli, which had convicted him under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and twenty years' imprisonment under the POCSO Act.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Ravindra Pratap Singh argued that the case involved a consensual relationship and that the prosecution had failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. Government Advocate Abhishek Singh opposed the appeal and relied on the prosecutrix's Class X marksheet, which recorded her date of birth as December 27, 2007, to contend that she was around sixteen and a half years old when the incident occurred in April 2024.

The High Court closely examined the evidence relating to the prosecutrix's age and found significant inconsistencies. The prosecutrix stated that she was admitted to Class I when she was seven years old. Her father, however, testified that he had admitted her to LKG on July 31, 2014. The Court noted that no admission register, marksheet or other document from the earliest stage of her schooling had been produced before the trial court.

The Bench also found contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix's parents regarding her age. While her mother stated that the prosecutrix was born two years after her marriage, which had taken place twenty years before the incident, her father stated that the marriage had taken place nineteen years before the incident and that the prosecutrix was born one year later. According to the Court, these statements suggested that the prosecutrix was an adult at the time of the occurrence.

The Court further observed that the school teacher who appeared as a witness admitted that the prosecutrix was admitted directly to Class II in 2014 and that no earlier educational records had been produced. As a result, the Bench held that the school records relied upon by the prosecution could not conclusively establish the correctness of the recorded date of birth. It also found an apparent inconsistency in the educational timeline because the prosecutrix allegedly entered school in 2014 but appeared in the Class X examination in 2023, raising doubts about the accuracy of the age-related documents.

Referring to the medical evidence, the Court noted that Dr. Sarita Shah had found the prosecutrix's secondary sexual characteristics to be fully developed. No external or internal injuries were detected and no definite opinion regarding violation of her privacy was expressed.

The Bench also considered the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony before the Court. It noted that she had stated that she left home after being beaten by her father, travelled with the appellant to Varanasi, married him and thereafter lived with him as husband and wife.

Holding that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving that the prosecutrix was a minor, the Court observed, "The prosecutrix (PW-1) was a consenting party. Further, her date of birth has not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution." The Bench further held that "mere positivity of the DNA report, by itself, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant."

Setting aside the conviction and sentence, the Court concluded that the trial court had failed to appreciate the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the appellant, who was in custody, was directed to be released forthwith.

Case Title: Munna Ram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Judgment: June 25, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh