The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the minor status of the victim; failing to do so invalidates charges under child abduction and POCSO offenses.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2021 on the file of the learned Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District dated 22.01.2025, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of , Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act .

2. The case of the prosecution is that the minor victim girl fell in love with the appellant 1 ½ years before the date of the occurrence. After knowing the love affair between the appellant and the victim, the defacto complainant advised the victim not to talk with the appellant. However, the appellant enticed the victim under the pretext of loving her and marrying her. On 21.03.2020 at about 5 p.m., the appellant kidnapped the victim from her house on his motor cycle with an intention to marry and have sexual intercourse with her. They went to Bangalore and the appellant tied thali to the victim. They stayed there till 03.05.2020 in a rental house. On their stay, the appellant had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. After knowing the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant and registration of FIR in crime No.44 of 2020 under “girl missing”, the victim girl and the appellant came to their respective houses. Thereafter, on recording the statement of victim, the respondent altered the offence into offence under Sections 363 & 366 of , Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act . After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined PW1 to PW17 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The prosecution produced a material object as M.O.1. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months imprisonment; under Section 366 of to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months imprisonment; under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act , to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months imprisonment; and under Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act , to undergo twenty years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo twelve months imprisonment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant has filed this criminal appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim. In order to prove the age of the victim, the certificate issued by the school where the victim had studied, was marked as Ex.P12 through the headmaster of the school. In fact, the entry in the school record was not supported by any document such as birth certificate. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the age of the victim to convict the appellant herein under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and POCSO Act . He further submitted that when the age of the victim was not proved by the prosecution, even according to the case of the prosecution, the victim herself eloped with the appellant since they already fell in love with each other to get married. Accordingly, they went to Bangalore and got married in a temple. Thereafter, they stayed in a rent