The requirement for documentary evidence regarding a victim's age is critical in sexual assault cases; verbal claims alone cannot suffice for conviction.

1. State takes exception to judgement dated 02.06.2016 whereby respondent has been acquitted of charges under Sections 363 , 366, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO).

2. Since matter pertains to a sexual assault committed, allegedly, upon a minor girl, she would be referred to as ‘Miss A’ in the present judgment.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Miss A, aged 13 years, went missing on 30.12.2014. On the basis of report filed by her mother (PW-7), FIR was registered, same day, by PS Aman Vihar.

4. On 03.01.2015, PW7 produced her said daughter before the police and alleged that she had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the respondent-accused.

5. Police swung into action.

6. It recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., in which she claimed that accused had called her on 23.12.2014 on a false pretext and made forcible physical relation with her and, later, he took her to his village in a bus where they stayed there for 2-3 days. According to her, she was enticed away by the accused on the pretext that he would marry her.

7. However, when she was produced before the court, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she disclosed that she was in love with accused and wanted to marry him. Claiming herself to be 13 years of age, she further stated that she had, voluntarily, accompanied accused who took her to his native village. She also stated that accused had made physical relations with her, earlier also i.e. on 23.12.2014. She also revealed that she was dropped back to Delhi by the elder brother of accused.

8. Accused, who was in his early twenties, was arrested and eventually charged under Section 6 of POCSO and under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 (2) (n) IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. Prosecution examined eight witnesses in order to substantiate its case.

10. Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of parents of Miss A because he belonged to a different caste.

11. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

12. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused while observing that there was no document with regard to the age of the prosecutrix (Miss A) and no bone age ossification test had either been conducted for determining her age. Since there was nothing to indicate that she was minor, she was presumed to be major. Taking note of her deposition, learned Trial Court also came to the conclusion that she had gone along with the accused with her own sweet will and, therefore, not finding her testimony of sterling quality and on account of there being no medical evidence in support of the case of prosecution, the accused was acquitted.

13. Such order is under challenge.

14. Mr. Jha, learned APP for State submits that the findings given by learned Trial Court are contrary to law and facts and there is nothing to indicate that Miss A was major at the relevant time or that she was a consenting party. Though, in all fairness, while admitting that the investigating agency should have either collected documents related to her date of birth or else gone for her bone age ossification test, it is contended that prosecution’s case could not have been discarded, merely, because of the abovesaid omission, as Miss A was, as per oral deposition, thirteen years of age when she had been enticed away. It is also emphasized that mere non-availability of MLC could not have been taken as an adverse circumstance against the prosecution. Mr. Jha also argues that question of her consent did not arise at all as she was minor and under constant threat of the ac