Back
Sikkim High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence: Birth Certificate Proves POCSO Victim's Minority
The has upheld the 20-year sentence awarded to a man convicted under the (POCSO Act), ruling that the prosecution had conclusively established the survivor's minority through her birth certificate, school admission records, and the hospital's live birth register.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan dismissed the appeal filed by Bishnu Chettri, rejecting the argument that the state had failed to prove that the victim was a child at the time of the offence. The court observed that the defence had not led any evidence to rebut the attached to the public documents.
The Story of a Relationship
The survivor, then a Class VIII student, met the appellant in their village in October 2021. Chettri had come there to work as a mason. The two developed a romantic relationship and began meeting frequently. The survivor often stayed with the appellant in his rented room. In 2022, she eloped with him to Gangtok, where they lived together and had a physical relationship. She became pregnant and delivered a baby girl on .
The prosecution was triggered when the survivor's sister returned from Agra on , and found her missing. She lodged an FIR the next day, leading to charges under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) of the POCSO Act, both punishable under Section 6. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default stipulation of two months simple imprisonment.
Challenging the Proof of Age
The appellant's counsel, , argued that the prosecution failed to establish the minority of the survivor. She contended that the registering authority for the birth certificate had not been identified, and that the survivor's parents had not been examined, rendering the proof of age insufficient.
Assistant Public Prosecutor countered that the prosecution had proved the survivor's minority through multiple documentary and oral evidence.
What the Evidence Showed
The court examined the three key documents produced by the prosecution:
-
Birth Certificate (Exhibit P2/P.W.2): Issued under , it recorded the survivor's date of birth as . The survivor's sister (P.W.2) identified the certificate, and the survivor herself (P.W.6) confirmed her date of birth during deposition. Neither witness was challenged on this point during cross-examination.
-
School Admission Register (Exhibit P8/P.W.4): The principal of the government senior secondary school where the survivor had studied produced the original register, which also recorded her date of birth as . The defence did not question the correctness of these entries.
-
Live Birth Register (Exhibit P11/P.W.5): The Additional Medical Superintendent-II at proved the entry in the maintained under Section 16 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The register showed the survivor's date of birth as .
The Court's Reasoning
The court emphasized that whenever an accused is charged under the POCSO Act, it is
"incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the victim was a child at the time of the offence."
It found that the original birth certificate, being a
, carries a
which the defence had not rebutted.
Noting that the live birth register is maintained under Section 16 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the court observed: "It also carries with it a of the entries made therein under . These entries were made and therefore, can be relied upon safely."
The court also noted that the cross-examination by the defence did not help their case and
"leads to a presumption that the accused was aware about the minority of the survivor."
A Classic Case
While upholding the conviction and sentence, the court acknowledged the unique circumstances of the case. The survivor admitted during cross-examination that the appellant had applied "sindoor potey" on her as a symbol of marriage and that the physical relationship was consensual. The DNA evidence confirmed that the appellant was the biological father of the child born to the survivor.
The court observed:
"The sentences imposed upon the accused sends him to prison for 20 years which is almost a life time. We have no
akin to power of Supreme Court, to interfere with the conviction as this is a classic case of
as evident from the evidence in the matter."
The Final Verdict
The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. It confirmed the 20-year sentence, noting that it was the prescribed under . The court also upheld the compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs recommended for the survivor under the .
The judgment was delivered on , and the court directed that copies be forwarded to the trial court and the immediately.
