In cases of consensual teenage relationships where the victim is near the age of majority and no evidence of force exists, the automatic application of the POCSO Act, in the absence of conclusive proof of minority, may be unjustified, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed praying to set aside the conviction judgment passed by the Sessions Judge/Mahila Court, Cuddalore in Spl.SC.No.27 of 2015 dated 25.11.2016, thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim while was studying 12^th std in Saint Anne’s Higher Secondary School, Cuddalore, she had acquaintance with the accused and also fell in love with him. While being so, on 25.05.2015, at about 7.30 a.m., when the accused went to the house of the victim and asked her to come with him to get married, thereafter both went to a nearby village by name Thachakadu at Chidambaram Taluk and got married at Ayyanar Kovil. On the same day, they stayed together and had sexual relationship. Thereafter, he had taken her and dropped her in his paternal uncle’s house situated at Manalmedu village. The victim had stayed there and thereafter the accused did not turn up. Hence, the victim went to the house of the accused and it remained locked. She had waited in his paternal uncle’s house until his arrival. However, the accused did not turn up and as such on 03.06.2015, complaint was lodged before the respondent. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.7 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. The trial court framed charges for the offence under Section 366-A of IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked to disprove the charges. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 366-A of IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. The trial court imposed sentence to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 366-A IPC. Sentence to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under sections 3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim. The prosecution marked Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 i.e. xerox copy of SSLC marksheet and transfer certificate. Both are inadmissible in evidence since both are xerox copies. Both were marked through the victim and not marked through the authority concerned. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the age of the victim to attract the offence under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act. When the prosecution failed to prove the victim as minor, offence under Section 366-A of IPC also would not attract. Admittedly, the accused and the victim fell in love. Even as per the mark sheet and the transfer certificate, which were marked