Unreliable Age Proof, Including Birth Certificate Registered After 11 Years, Leads to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-11

Gauhati High Court Overturns 20-Year POCSO Sentence, Cites Unreliable Age Proof

Guwahati: In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction and 20-year sentence of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, holding that the prosecution failed to reliably establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.

A division bench comprising Justice Robin Phukan and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair acquitted Anand Sidasow of charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court found that the primary evidence of the victim's age—a school leaving certificate and a birth certificate registered 11 years after her birth—was inadmissible and unreliable.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged by the victim in October 2023, alleging that in June 2020, when she was purportedly 14, the appellant, Anand Sidasow, lured her with a false promise of marriage and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. She claimed they cohabited for three years, during which she was sexually exploited, forced to take contraceptive pills, and made to undergo an abortion. The relationship soured, leading to alleged torture and threats, prompting her to file the complaint.

The Special Judge (POCSO) at Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh, convicted Sidasow, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The conviction was primarily based on the school leaving certificate and birth certificate, which indicated the victim's date of birth as February 10, 2006, making her a minor in 2020. Sidasow appealed this decision to the High Court.

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Contentions (Anand Sidasow):

- Unreliable Age Proof: The defense, led by Advocate Gallen Taloh, argued that the trial court erred in determining the victim's age. The school leaving certificate was never formally proven by a school authority, and the birth certificate was registered approximately 11 years after the victim's stated birth date without following the mandatory legal procedures for delayed registration.

- Victim's Own Testimony: The defense highlighted that both the victim and her mother admitted during cross-examination that her actual date of birth might be earlier than what was recorded, suggesting she could have been a major in 2020.

- Consensual Relationship: It was argued that the victim, being a major, had willingly cohabited with the appellant. The sexual intercourse was consensual, which negates the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC and renders the POCSO Act inapplicable.

State's Submissions: - The prosecution, represented by Addl. P.P. Ms. T. Jini, contended that the documentary evidence clearly established the victim was a minor.

- It was argued that since the defense did not object to the exhibition of the school and birth certificates during the trial, they could not challenge their validity at the appellate stage.

- As the victim was a minor, her consent was immaterial in law, and the conviction was justified.

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

The High Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence related to the victim's age, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case.

On the Admissibility of Documents: The bench found critical flaws in the evidence presented by the prosecution:

- The school leaving certificate (Exhibit-3) was deemed unreliable because "the contents of the said certificate has not been proved by the prosecution by adducing the evidence of the school authorities." The court noted that the basis on which the school recorded her date of birth was never established.

- The birth certificate (Exhibit-4) was held inadmissible for failing to comply with Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The court observed:

"In the present case the birth of the petitioner having been registered after about 11 (eleven) years of its occurrence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the delayed registration...was so made in compliance with the provisions of sub Section(3) of Section 13 of the Act of 1989... the birth certificate Exhibit-4, in our considered view would not be admissible for the purpose of determining the age of the victim, herein."

On Witness Testimonies: The court gave significant weight to the admissions made by the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2).

"The victim girl while deposing during the Trial... had also deposed that her date of birth, though mentioned as 10-02-2006, her date of birth may be previous to that date and she may be older than that. [The mother] had during her deposition deposed that the date of birth of the victim girl may be... during the year 2002 or 2003."

These testimonies directly contradicted the documentary evidence and created a strong doubt about the victim's minority status.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor, the High Court held that the relationship was consensual between two adults. The bench stated:

"In view of the above position, the victim girl not being a minor, the victim girl and the accused appellant having cohabited together and having consensual physical relationship, the charge framed against the accused appellant, herein, under Section 376 IPC, and also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in our considered view has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution."

Applying the legal principle that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted, the court allowed the appeal. The judgment and sentence dated February 28, 2024, and March 6, 2024, respectively, were set aside, and Anand Sidasow was acquitted of all charges.