Back
Reliability of Age Documentation: Overturns POCSO Conviction
In a significant ruling regarding the in cases involving the , the has set aside the conviction of a 27-year-old man. The , comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, emphasized that a birth certificate registered years after an individual's birth cannot be granted a , particularly when statutory requirements for late registration remain unfulfilled.
The Backdrop of the Dispute The case originated from a FIR, where the appellant, Jeet Hang Subba, was accused of sexual assault and administering medication to a minor, following which the victim became pregnant. Although the acquitted the accused of the charge under , it convicted him under the POCSO Act and , concluding that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
The legal battle centered on whether the prosecution had adequately established the victim’s age. The defense argued that the birth certificate relied upon as evidence was issued years after the child's birth and was riddled with inconsistencies, contradicting testimony provided by both the victim and her mother.
Conflicting Testimonies and Documentary Evidence During the appeal, the Court scrutinized the prosecution’s reliance on the birth certificate (Exhibit-P3). While the document recorded the victim's birth date as , the victim herself testified that she was born in and that her parents had intentionally reduced her age in official records. This testimony remained uncontroverted by the prosecution throughout the trial.
Furthermore, forensic and medical evidence supported the fact of a pregnancy, but the Court found no corroborated evidence to substantiate that the victim was legally a child under the POCSO Act’s definition.
Judicial Reasoning on Procedural Compliance The High Court underscored a critical legal principle: the , mandates that births not registered within one year require specific procedural authorization from a First Class Magistrate. Justice Pradhan, writing for the Bench, noted that there was no evidence of such an order. Consequently, the Court held that the "" status of the birth certificate lost its in this context.
Key Observations The High Court's judgment serves as a cautionary tale for the evidentiary standards required in sensitive cases:
-
On the :
"When the prosecution sets out to establish their case it is incumbent upon them to do so with . When conflicting evidence is put forth by the prosecution it is that the one favouring the accused person should be accepted."
-
On the presumption of public documents:
"There is no evidence placed by the prosecution to suggest compliance of this provision before the Registration of Births and Deaths in the Register... Consequently, the of the i.e. the birth certificate cannot be made in its favour."
-
On the nature of :
"We are of the view that although the prosecution could not establish that the fetal substance extracted from the pregnant victim was that of the appellant, the victim’s deposition about the sexual intercourse with the appellant is unblemished. However, as the sexual intercourse between them was consensual and the prosecution could not establish that the victim was a child we are unable to confirm the conviction."
Final Verdict: An Acquittal Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's status as a minor, the High Court set aside the . The appellant was ordered to be acquitted of all charges and released from custody, provided his detention was not required in any other ongoing matter.
This decision reinforces the necessity for rigorous verification of age-related documentation in criminal proceedings, ensuring that convictions under stringent laws are based upon definitive, legally sound evidence rather than potentially flawed administrative records.
