In a significant order addressing the intersection of age determination and evidentiary standards under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has suspended the execution of a 20-year sentence, granting bail to the appellant pending appeal. The judgment underscores the critical role of birth records and witness testimony consistency in establishing the victim's age - a determinative factor for POCSO applicability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sanjay Pandre, was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mandla (M.P.), in SC No. 18/2024 for offences under Sections 366, 376(3), 363, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5(l)/6 and 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 5 years under Section 366 IPC and 20 years under the POCSO Act, along with fines of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the victim was a consenting adult at the time of the incident, rendering the POCSO Act inapplicable.
Key Facts
- Conviction Date: 17.11.2025
- Sentences Imposed:
- Section 366 IPC: R.I. for 5 years + Rs. 1,000 fine
- Section 5(l)/6 POCSO: R.I. for 20 years + Rs. 2,000 fine
- Sections 376(3), 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and 3/4(2) POCSO: No separate sentence
- Victim’s Age Dispute: The appellant contended that the victim was above 18 years at the time of the incident, based on:
- Mother’s Testimony (PW-2): Deposed that her marriage occurred 25 years prior to the incident, with the victim born one year after marriage and siblings at 1.5-year intervals, suggesting the victim was 21 years old.
- Father’s Testimony (PW-3): Stated his marriage was 30 years prior, with the victim born after 5 years, implying the victim was 19 years old.
- School Records (PW-7): Admitted that the victim’s date of birth in the admission register (Ex.P/26) was recorded without a birth certificate, casting doubt on the victim’s age.
- DNA Evidence: The prosecution relied on a DNA report, but the appellant argued this alone was insufficient to uphold the conviction without corroborating evidence of age.
Procedural History
- 17.11.2025: Conviction and sentencing by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mandla.
- Post-Conviction: Appellant filed CRA No. 564 of 2026 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- 09.07.2026: Present application (I.A. No. 1178/2026) filed under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.) for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of the remaining jail sentence and release on bail, arguing:
- Ambiguity in Victim’s Age: Inconsistent testimonies and lack of birth records.
- DNA Evidence Insufficiency: Mere positivity of the DNA report cannot sustain conviction without proof of age.
- Merits of Appeal: Strong chances of success in the appeal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether ambiguities in the victim’s age determination and reliance on DNA evidence alone are sufficient grounds to suspend a conviction under the POCSO Act pending appeal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Age Determination Ambiguity: Highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim’s parents (PW-2 and PW-3) regarding the victim’s age. Argued that the victim’s age, calculated based on their statements, exceeded 18 years, rendering the POCSO Act inapplicable.
- School Records: Pointed out that the victim’s date of birth in the school admission register was recorded without a birth certificate, undermining the prosecution’s case.
- DNA Evidence Insufficiency: Contended that the DNA report alone, without corroborating evidence of the victim’s age, was insufficient to uphold the conviction.
- Chances of Success in Appeal: Submitted that the appeal had strong merits and prayed for suspension of sentence and bail.
For the Respondent/State
- Opposition to Bail: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, supporting the impugned judgment and arguing against the suspension of sentence.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but acknowledged the ambiguities in the victim’s age determination and the potential insufficiency of DNA evidence as compelling grounds for suspending the sentence. The Court observed:
"Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and there appears to be good chances of success in appeal, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the remaining part of jail sentence of appellant and release him on bail."
The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the victim’s age lies with the prosecution, and any ambiguity in this regard could vitiate the conviction under the POCSO Act, which is strictly applicable only to victims under 18 years of age. The reliance on school records without a birth certificate and inconsistent testimonies were deemed significant factors warranting the suspension of sentence.
The Verdict
The Court allowed I.A. No. 1178/2026, suspending the remaining part of the appellant’s jail sentence and granting bail pending the disposal of the appeal. The appellant was directed to:
- Deposit the fine amount (if not already deposited).
- Furnish a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
- Appear before the trial court on 10.09.2026 and on all subsequent dates as fixed by the court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Determination Is Non-Negotiable Under POCSO
- Strict Applicability: The POCSO Act applies only to victims under 18 years of age. Ambiguities in age determination can fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution must unequivocally prove the victim’s age through reliable documents (e.g., birth certificates) or consistent witness testimonies. School records alone, without supporting documents, may not suffice.
DNA Evidence Alone Is Insufficient
- Corroboration Required: While DNA evidence can establish the occurrence of an offence, it cannot substitute for proof of age or consent, especially in POCSO cases.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Courts may suspend sentences where the prosecution’s case rests solely on DNA evidence without corroborating proof of age.
Suspension of Sentence: A Remedy for Strong Appeals
- Merits-Based Suspension: The Court may suspend sentences pending appeal where there are strong chances of success, particularly in cases involving evidentiary ambiguities.
- Practical Implications: Practitioners should challenge age determination and evidentiary sufficiency in POCSO appeals to seek suspension of sentence and bail.
