The prosecution must prove the victim's age and non-consensual nature of the relationship beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so invalidates charges under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed in Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2017 dated 16.02.2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, thereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the victim was th studying 12 standard, she fell in love with the appellant. Both belongs to the same community. However, there was objection from their parents due to previous enmity. After completion of the final examination of her twelfth standard on 01.04.2016, the victim eloped with the appellant and stayed in a private lodge at Dharmapuri. Thereafter, they went to the house of one of the relatives of the appellant and stayed there. There, they had physical relationship. On next day i.e. 02.04.2016, they went to a murugan temple and the appellant tied 'thali' to the victim. Thereafter, they went to Vridhachalam. Both had informed their relatives that they got married and that they are living together as husband and wife. The appellant also joined a bakery for work. While being so, on 13.04.2016, the appellant was called by the victim’s family through phone and had spoken as if they had accepted their marriage. Therefore they were proceeding to her house along with the relatives of the appellant. The victim alone was taken away by her parents and was compelled to remove her 'thali'. Thereafter, she was brought to the respondent’s police station. On complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.94 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 366A of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW18 and marked Ex.P1 to P19. On the side of the appellant, he had examined DW1 and marked Ex.D1 & Ex.D2. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.8,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim. Even according to the victim, her date of birth was mentioned as 10.07.1999 and thereafter it was corrected as 10.05.1999. Therefore, she attained majority on the date of the alleged occurrence. The appellant never kidnapped the victim. On her wish, she herself went along with appellant and also got married. They had physical relationship with consent of both. Therefore, it was consensual sex and no question of any offence under POCSO Act arises. In fact, both lived as husband and wife in the place in which they stayed and the person who owned the premises was not examined by the prosecution. They both lived together as husband and wife for 14 days. Even according to the prosecution, the victim was born on 10.05.1999 and she completed 17 years and 1 month on the date of the alleged occurrence. During her adolescent age, she fell in love with the appellant and eloped with him. Therefore, the appellant alone cannot be punished under the POCSO Act. He also relied