Advocates appeared:
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ebo Mili, T Siga,Aruna Rai,K Nada,Tali Umbey,Madan Mili,Chanya Bangsia,Sonam Tsomo,T Lamnio,Sunil Mow
Advocate for the Respondent: P P of AP, Rinchin Ledo Thungon

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Case Details - Case Name: Thomas Lamnio Son of Shri Dapung Lamnio – Appellant VERSUS The State of AP and Anr. – Respondents - Court: The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) - Citation: 2025 Supreme(Gau) 740 / 2025 GAU(AP) 598 - Crl.A. No.: 34/2023 - Date Decided: 20-05-2025 - Judges: Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Budi Habung, JJ. - Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld. (!) (!)

Legal Provisions Referred - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 161, 164, 313, 374 (!) (!) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012: Sections 2(d), 6 (!) (!) - Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 363, 363(3), 376(3), 506 (!) (!) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Sections 180, 183, 351, 415 (!) (!) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Section 65 (!) (!) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016: Rule 54(18)(iv) (!) (!) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act: Section 94 (!) (!)

Facts of the Case - The appellant was convicted for engaging in sexual acts with a minor victim. - The victim initially consented to the relationship but later reported the incidents after discovering the appellant was a married person. - The victim alleged forceful sexual intercourse and consumption of contraceptive pills. - A repetition of the offence was alleged on 17.08.2022, after the FIR was lodged on 05.08.2022. - The victim was medically examined on 21.08.2022, revealing signs of recent sexual intercourse and struggle. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Evidence Presented - Prosecution Witnesses: - PW-1 (Victim): Deposed on her date of birth (10.09.2006), the nature of the offence, and the seizure of her Birth Certificate (P Exhibit-2). (!) - PW-2 (Sister-in-law): Corroborated the victim's version regarding the incident on 17.08.2022. (!) - PW-3 (Brother of victim): Proved the Seizure Memo of the Birth Certificate (P Exhibit-4) and corroborated the repetition of the offence. (!) - PW-12 (Investigating Officer): Narrated investigation steps, seizure of Birth Certificate, and arrest of the appellant. (!) - PW-13 (Doctor): Examined the victim and appellant; found evidence of recent sexual intercourse and force; noted the appellant had admitted to consensual intercourse during the exam. (!) (!) (!) - PW-14 (Investigating Officer): Deposed on the repetition of the offence, victim's age (approx. 16), and medical findings. (!) - Defence Witnesses: - DW-1 (Relative of accused): Deposed that the appellant was in love with the victim and claimed no offence was committed. (!) - DW-2 (Headmaster): Produced documents showing the victim's date of birth as 10.09.2002. (!) - Court Witnesses: - CW-1 (School Principal): Stated conflicting dates of birth (1997, 2002, 2006) based on various school records but admitted the age was reduced in some records. (!) - CW-2 (Addl. Registrar): Confirmed the Birth Certificate date of birth as 10.09.2006. (!)

Issues Raised 1. Age Determination: The appellant argued that the victim was over 18 years old (born 10.09.2002) based on school records, challenging the prosecution's proof that she was 16 (born 10.09.2006). The appellant claimed the prosecution failed to follow Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act for age determination and that documents produced by the defence were originals while prosecution documents were photocopies. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) 2. Consent: The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and therefore did not constitute an offence under the POCSO Act or IPC Section 376, especially if the victim was a major. (!) (!) (!) 3. Medical Evidence: The appellant questioned the medical opinion as it was recorded after the FIR was lodged and no forensic tests were done on the materials. (!) 4. Admissibility of Documents: The appellant challenged the trial court's finding that defence documents were photocopies and thus inadmissible under Section 64 of the Evidence Act. (!) (!)

Court's Findings and Reasoning - Age Determination: The court held that the Birth Certificate (P Exhibit-2) proving the date of birth as 10.09.2006 was primary evidence and duly proved. The documents produced by the defence (Admission Form, Transfer Certificate) were not specified under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and were found to be photocopies, making them inadmissible. The issue of age had already attained finality in a previous judgment dated 20.09.2023 (Crl. Rev.P/24/2023). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Consent: Since the victim was established to be under 18 years of age (a "Child" under Section 2(d) of POCSO), the concept of consent is irrelevant. Consent cannot be a defense in cases involving minors. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Evidence Reliability: The testimony of the victim (PW-1), her relatives (PW-2, PW-3), and the Doctor (PW-13) remained unimpeached. The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the doctor was considered credible in light of other corroborating evidence. (!) (!) - Legal Presumptions: The prosecution successfully laid down the foundational facts, triggering the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption, which they failed to do with admissible evidence. (!) (!)

Verdict and Sentence - The appeal was dismissed. - The conviction was upheld for: - 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 6 of POCSO Act. - 7 years Simple Imprisonment under Section 363 of IPC. - 5 years Simple Imprisonment under Section 506 of IPC. - The appellant was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively. (!) (!)