The prosecution must prove the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in the reversal of convictions under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 417 of Cr.P.C, vide judgment in SC No.51 of 2020 dated 22.12.2021 passed by the First Fast Track Sessions Judge For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Khammam. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of P.W.1, who is the victim, is that she got acquainted with the appellant as he was resident of the same village. He used to follow P.W.1 and stated that he was in love with her and wanted to marry her. Believing his words, P.W.1 had sexual intercourse with the appellant, however, it was forcible. Appellant used to go to the examination centre when she was appearing for the intermediate second year examination and after writing the exam, he used to take her to bakery shop and Shivalayam temple. They also went to forest area and appellant tried to have sexual intercourse with her. However, P.W.1 did not agree. Specifically on 18.08.2019 Sunday, when the parents of P.W.1 were not present, the appellant went to their house and stated that he would marry her and raped her. Thereafter, the appellant started neglecting P.W.1. The acts of the appellant were informed to his parents, who are arrayed as A2 and A3. However, A2 and A3 supported A1 and sent him away from the village. Nearly five months thereafter on 11.01.2020, the appellant went to the village to attend funeral of his maternal uncle. Having come to know about the appellant’s presence in the village, PW.1 questioned him as to why the appellant was neglecting her after sexually exploiting her. The appellant allegedly stated that he was not interested in her. P.W.1 informed to her parents. P.W.2 is the father of PW1. The parents of PW1 and other elders called for a panchayat on 22.01.2020 and elders were informed about the acts of the appellant. However, neither the appellant nor his parents appeared before the Panchayat. As advised by the elders, criminal complaint was filed on 25.01.2020.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 417, 376, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 IPC. Charges were framed for the said offences. Learned Special Judge examined the victim as P.W.1 and other witnesses P.Ws.2 to 14. Having considered the said evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as stated supra.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved the age of the victim as below 18 years since the only document relied on is the Secondary School Certificate Ex.P12. The said certificate cannot form basis to correctly state the date of birth of the victim girl. Further, the facts of the case clearly indicate that there was consent amongst P.W.1 and the appellant for sexual intercourse. In the said circumstances of the complaint being made nearly after seven months of the alleged rape, which is evident from the final opinion Ex.P9 given by the Doctor in which it is mentioned that the last sexual contact was in June, 2019. The complaint was filed on 25.01.2020, nearly seven months thereafter.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that consent is of no consequence since the age of the girl was below 18 years. Further the delay in lodging the complaint is also of no consequence since in such cases, the victims are not inclined to lodge complaint as the entire issue would be in public and result in social stigma. In the said circumstances, finding of the lower Court cannot be interfered with.

6. Admittedly, the basis for age determination was the Secondary S