The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dismissed an appeal filed by an original complainant challenging a trial court’s decision to acquit an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case. A division bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani affirmed the judgment of the Special (POCSO) Judge, Banaskantha, citing the failure of the prosecution to prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The court further ruled that the victim’s own conduct during the relevant period suggested a consensual relationship, thereby undermining the allegations of kidnapping and forcible sexual assault.

The litigation originated from an FIR filed on June 7, 2024, at the Amirgadh Police Station, alleging that the accused had abducted a 16-year-old girl and subjected her to sexual assault. Following an investigation, the accused was charged under sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court, after examining 12 witnesses and 28 documents, acquitted the accused in September 2025. Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the victim’s father, acting as the original complainant, moved the High Court, asserting that the trial court had overlooked critical evidence regarding the victim’s age and the coercive nature of the incident.

In reviewing the appeal, the High Court focused heavily on the evidentiary standards required to establish the age of a minor. The prosecution had relied upon birth register entries from the Dholiya Gram Panchayat, produced by the Talati-cum-Mantri (PW-10). However, the High Court observed that the witness lacked personal knowledge regarding the registration process, and the prosecution failed to establish the source of the data recorded in the register. The court emphasized that the mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not automatically establish the truth of its contents.

Relying on the legal principle that a birth record must be substantiated by substantive evidence to hold weight, the court referenced recent judicial observations, noting, “The evidentiary value of such an entry made in public or official register may be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, admissibility is distinct from probative value.” The High Court concluded that without proof of the source or authenticity of the underlying information, the prosecution could not rely on the presumption of minority required to invoke the heightened protections of the POCSO Act.

Beyond the issue of age, the court scrutinized the victim’s testimony and actions during the night of the incident. The evidence indicated that the victim exited her family home at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. and traveled with the accused without raising an alarm or seeking assistance. Testimony showed that she accompanied the accused in a rickshaw, walked a significant distance, and stayed in a dwelling shared by others without disclosing any incident of kidnapping or assault. These details led the court to determine that the narrative of a forcible abduction was inconsistent with the objective facts presented.

The bench remarked, “In such circumstances, when the age of the victim has not been proved, then, she presumed to be an adult person and having regard to the conduct of the victim, as discussed, it seems that she is the consenting party and relationship during the stay at Neliyu was consensual in nature.” Consequently, the court found the prosecution's case lacked the necessary consistency to overcome the presumption of innocence that follows an acquittal order.

The High Court clarified that while it has the authority to interfere in cases of clear perversity or misapprehension of evidence, this specific case did not meet the high threshold for overturning a trial court’s acquittal. The bench observed that the trial judge had acted within the scope of legal discretion by properly weighing the credibility of the witnesses against the physical evidence and the victim’s demonstrated conduct.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict evidentiary burdens placed on the state in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving grave offenses where the age of the victim is a foundational element for sentencing. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically noting that the absence of proof regarding the victim’s minor status meant the case could not sustain the charges as filed.

Having found that the findings of the trial court were rooted in a proper appreciation of the evidence presented, the High Court deemed further intervention unnecessary. With the dismissal of the appeal at the admission stage, the acquittal order remains in effect, confirming that the prosecution’s failure to corroborate critical facts—both regarding the age of the victim and the alleged absence of consent—precluded a conviction. The matter stands resolved at the appellate level, with the court concluding that no compelling circumstances existed to disturb the trial court's final judgment.