The prosecution must provide verifiable evidence to establish a victim's age when charging under the POCSO Act, as mere testimony is insufficient to prove minority.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

The instant revision petition under Section 438 R/W Section 442 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner who is the biological brother of the accused praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 05.06.2025 passed in GR.75/2021 corresponding to Kohima Women P.S Case No.09/2021 by which the accused person was convicted under Section 354 A(1)(i) IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act by the Special Judge, POCSO Kohima. The petitioner is also challenging the sentence order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Kohima, Nagaland.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Alezo Kire as well as Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned P.P and Mr. Sentiyanger, Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.07.2021 an FIR was lodged at the Women P.S Kohima by the respondent No.2/mother of the victim to the effect that her daughter was molested and raped at AG colony by the accused person when she went for nature’s call at around 1.30 to 2.00 PM at AG colony Kohima. The Officer-in-Charge of the Women PS registered the case as Women P.S Case.NO.009/2021 u/s 354(A) (1)(i)/376 (2)(i) IPC R/w Sec 4/8 POCSO Act. Subsequently, a charge sheet dated 29.07.2021 was submitted against the accused under Section 354 A (1)(i)/376(3) R/w Section 4 /8 POCSO Act as it was alleged that the victim was also a minor. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the victim and upon completion of the trial the learned trial court found that no case was made out against the accused under Section 376 (2) and Section 4 POCSO Act, but the learned Special Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2025 convicted the accused under A(1)(i) and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and also under Section 8 of the POCSO Act to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(One thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months, wherein the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Alezo Kire submits that the present revision petition is being preferred on the ground that Section 42 of the POCSO Act provides that a person cannot be made to suffer punishment both under the IPC as well as the POCSO Act. Contrary to the statutory provisions, the learned Special Judge had awarded punishment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 354A(1)(i) of the .

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused could not be made to suffer two punishments for a single act as the same is impermissible in law. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that the prosecution inspite of exhibiting the birth certificate of the victim never proved the contents of the birth certificate in accordance with law. The original birth certificate of the victim was produced and marked as Exhibit P-12 before the Special Court but no witness having authority or any public servant from the office which issued the birth certificate was examined to prove the birth certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled law that documents are not proved merely because they are exhibited. The prosecution has a duty to exhibit and prove the contents of such documents to establish the truthfulness of its contents.

6. The