POCSO Conviction Set Aside for Failure to Prove Victim's Age; Madras HC Converts Charges to IPC, Citing S.222 CrPC - 2025-04-28

Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras HC Alters POCSO Conviction to IPC Citing Failure to Prove Victim 's Age

Madurai: The Madras High Court recently set aside the convictions of a father and a self-proclaimed priest under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, due to the prosecution's failure to conclusively prove the victim was a minor at the time of the offences. However, invoking Section 222 of the CrPC, the bench comprising Justices A.D. Jagadish Chandira and K. Rajasekar converted the charges and convicted the men for lesser offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the sexual assault itself was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court modified the life sentence of the priest to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for rape under Section 376(1) IPC and altered the father's 5-year POCSO sentence to 3 years of simple imprisonment for outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC.

---

Case Background: A Tale of Betrayal and Exploitation

The case presented a harrowing narrative of abuse. The victim, a 16-year-old girl, was first sexually molested by her own father (Accused No. 1) in 2018 and again in 2020. The father's threats of violence against her and her mother plunged the girl into severe depression.

Observing her distress and mistakenly believing she was possessed by an "evil spirit," her mother took her to Accused No. 2, a local man who performed rituals to ward off spirits. On September 20, 2021, under the pretext of performing a ritual, the priest drugged the victim with spiked milk and subjected her to repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault throughout the night.

The victim’s ordeal culminated on October 30, 2021, when, after another abusive episode by her father, she attempted suicide. This incident led her to finally disclose the dual assaults, prompting a call to the Child Helpline (1098) and a subsequent police complaint. The trial court convicted the father under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and the priest under Section 6, sentencing them to 5 years' imprisonment and life imprisonment until death, respectively.

---

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellants' Arguments:

- Misjoinder of Charges: Both accused argued they were prejudiced by a joint trial, as the offences were distinct in time, place, and nature.

- False Implication: The father alleged he was framed due to his wife's illicit affair, a claim he attempted to support with witness testimony. The priest claimed the case was a result of a pre-existing election-related dispute.

- Failure to Prove Age: Crucially, the defense contended that the prosecution failed to legally establish the victim's age as a minor, a foundational requirement for a POCSO conviction.

Prosecution's Stance:

- Same Transaction: The State argued that the father's initial assault directly caused the victim's depression, which led the family to seek the priest's help. Therefore, both crimes were interlinked and constituted a "same transaction," justifying a joint trial.

- Credibility of Victim's Testimony: The prosecution maintained that the victim's testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence, and should be placed on a higher pedestal.

---

Court's Analysis: Misjoinder, Proof of Age, and Conversion of Charge

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legal challenges raised by the appellants.

On Misjoinder of Charges: The bench held that the acts of both accused formed "part of the same transaction." It cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Balbir vs. State of Haryana , stating the test is whether the acts "are so related to one another in point of purpose or cause or impact... as to constitute one continuous action." The court found a direct causal link between the father's abuse, the victim's resulting depression, and the subsequent exploitation by the priest. It concluded that no failure of justice occurred from the joint trial.

On Proof of Victim's Age: This became the pivotal point for altering the conviction. The prosecution relied on a certificate (Ex.P.7) from the victim's school headmistress (P.W.6) to prove her age. The Court, however, found this evidence insufficient.

"This Ex.P.7 certificate was issued by her, based on the requisition made by the Investigating Officer and entries in this certificate is not in the nature of any public or official register. Hence, this certificate is not fulfil the requisites of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, and also it is not a birth certificate issued by the School," the judgment noted.

Since the prosecution failed to produce the primary admission register or other documents specified under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court ruled that the victim’s age was not proven, and thus the POCSO charges could not be sustained.

On Conversion of Offence under IPC: Despite the failure to prove age, the Court found the victim's testimony regarding the sexual assaults to be "credible, trustworthy and no reasons to find that, her evidence is based on any instigation or by tutoring." Citing its power under Section 222 of the CrPC , the bench held that when a person is charged with a major offence but the evidence proves a minor offence, a conviction for the minor offence is permissible.

The Court reasoned that rape under Section 376 IPC is a minor offence to penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, and outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC is a minor offence to sexual assault under POCSO.

---

Final Judgment and Directions

The High Court partly allowed the appeals, issuing the following orders:

1. Accused No. 1 (Father): Conviction under POCSO Act set aside. Convicted under Section 354 IPC (3 years simple imprisonment) and Section 506(i) IPC (1 year simple imprisonment), with sentences to run concurrently.

2. Accused No. 2 (Priest): Conviction under POCSO Act set aside. Convicted under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment .

3. Victim Compensation: The Court upheld the victim's right to compensation, directing the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority to ensure the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- under the relevant victim compensation scheme.