The prosecution must establish foundational facts, specifically the victim's age, before invoking special statutory presumptions. Failure to prove minority prevents the application of protective legislation, and where consent is admitted, charges of sexual assault under general law cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n) and 174A - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 415(2). Establishing age as a foundational fact is mandatory to attract statutes related to criminal offences against children. Evidentiary value of age-related documents, such as school records initialized based on maternal affidavits, is inadequate when uncorroborated. Presumption of guilt under special statutes is not automatic and only operates after foundational facts are established. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

(B) Appellate Court - Scope and ambit - An appellate court must interfere when the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly when age-related proof is legally deficient and the prosecution case is based on an admitted consensual relationship between the parties. (Paras 10, 13, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for offences related to sexual assault on a minor and failure to appear before the trial court. The prosecution maintained that the victim was a minor at the time of the incidence of sexual contact, however, the defense argued that the documentation supporting the age of the victim was unreliable and that the relationship was entirely consensual.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the documentation presented by the school authorities to support the claim of the victim being a minor was based solely on an affidavit provided by a parent, rendering it insufficient for proving age. The court held that such documents are essentially statements made to investigators and do not constitute primary proof or sufficient evidence for the purpose of establishing minority.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the prosecution had conclusively established the victim's minority as a foundational fact for the application of special legislation and whether the conviction for sexual assault was sustainable in the absence of such proof while considering the consensual nature of the relationship.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of minority status is a condition precedent for invoking special statutes regarding sexual offences against children. Where the documentation regarding age is inconclusive or inadmissible, the statutory presumption of guilt cannot be applied. Consequently, absent proof of minority, an established consensual relationship lacks the essential criminal elements required for a conviction under the relevant charges.

Result: Appeal allowed. The accused is acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and trial court conviction summary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions regarding victim's age and consensual sexual relations. (Para 10 , 11)
3. evidentiary assessment of witness testimonies and allegations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. standards for proving minority and presumption under pocso. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. acquittal due to failure to prove minority. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 727/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court - PoCSO), South District, Saket Courts Complex, Delhi, assails the judgement dated 19.09.2024 and order on sentence dated 16.10.2024, as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 5 (j)(ii) and (l) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that in the month of September 2017 and on 05.11.2017, the accused committed repeated penetrative sexual assault/ rape upon PW1, a minor aged about 17 years and 08 months as a result of which, she became pregnant. Further, the accused failed to appear before the trial court on 20.07.2018 as required by the proclamation published on 19.06.2018, following which the accused was declared a proclaimed offender on 01.09.2018. Hence, as per the chargesheet/ final report, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 174A IPC and 6 PoCSO.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW10/A FIS/FIR of PW10, given on 26.02.2018, Crime no. 204/2022, Ambedkar Nagar Police Station, i.e., Ext. PX FIR was registered by Dharam Pal Singh, Head Constable. PW3 Sub Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the chargesheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet dated 31.05.2019 and 24.02.2022 were submitted by PW9 and PW14.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 20.08.2019, framed a Charge under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of the PoCSO Act against the accused. Additionally, the trial court also framed a Charge under Section 174A IPC against the accused, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 16 were examined and Ext. PW1/A-B, Ext. PW2/A-C, Ext. PW6/A, Ext. PW10/A, Ext. PW11/A-C, Ext. PW12/A-D, Ext. PW15/A, Ext. PW16/A-C, Ext. PX, and Ext. PX-1 to PX-8 were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that electricity bill relating to a house, namely, H. No. K/400, Dakshinpuri, came in the name of the PW10, i.e., PW1’s mother, who asked him to threaten the owner of the said house. He refused the said request. PW10 repeated her demand and threatened to falsely implicate him if he refused to accede. As he refused the demand, PW10 got him falsely implicated in this case.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is show

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 938

Cases Referred (6)