The Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent order in Jhony @ Joni v. State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the critical importance of proving the source of age determination in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The judgment clarifies that entries in scholar registers, if based on guesswork without verifiable sources, cannot form the basis for conviction under Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act or Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This ruling has significant implications for the burden of proof in cases involving minors.
Background & Facts
The Conviction
The appellant, Jhony @ Joni, was convicted under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage) and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 20 years, respectively, along with fines. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abducted and sexually exploited the prosecutrix, a minor.
Procedural History
The case followed this trajectory:
- Trial Court: Convicted the appellant under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act.
- 2024: The appellant filed a criminal appeal (CRA No. 10570 of 2024) challenging the conviction.
- 2025: The appellant filed an interim application (I.A No. 16013/2025) under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal.
Key Contentions
The appellant argued that:
- The prosecution failed to prove the source of the prosecutrix's age as recorded in the scholar register.
- The age was recorded based on guesswork, rendering it inadmissible for establishing minority.
- The appellant was 21 years old at the time of the incident, which, if proven, would exclude the application of the POCSO Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a conviction under Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC can stand when the age of the victim is recorded in a scholar register without a proven source, particularly when the accused was an adult at the time of the incident.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant's counsel relied on the judgment in Tijubai @ Omvati Bai v. State of M.P. (2025(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 75), where the Court held that age entries in scholar registers cannot be the basis for conviction if the source of the date of birth is not proven. The counsel argued that the prosecution's failure to establish the source of the age record created reasonable doubt about the prosecutrix's minority, which is a prerequisite for invoking the POCSO Act.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor supported the trial court's conviction and sentence, contending that the scholar register entry was sufficient evidence of the prosecutrix's age. The State argued that the appellant's conviction was based on the presumption of minority arising from the scholar register, which should not be lightly discarded.
For the Complainant
The complainant's counsel did not object to the suspension of sentence, which facilitated the Court's decision.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the burden of proof in cases involving age determination under the POCSO Act. It relied on the precedent in Tijubai @ Omvati Bai, which established that:
"If the prosecution does not prove the source of the date of birth recorded in the scholar register and the same is recorded on the basis of guesswork, it cannot be the basis for conviction."
The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish the veracity of the age recorded in the scholar register. This failure created a reasonable doubt about whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, which is a constitutive element for offences under the POCSO Act. The Court noted that the appellant's age (21 years at the time of the incident) further weakened the prosecution's case, as it suggested the prosecutrix might not have been a minor.
The Court also considered the principle of suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS, which allows appellate courts to suspend sentences pending appeal if there are substantial grounds for doubting the correctness of the conviction. Given the lack of proven age evidence and the precedent in Tijubai, the Court found sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the appellant's interim application (I.A No. 16013/2025) and suspended the jail sentence pending the appeal. The appellant was directed to:
- Deposit the fine amount, if not already paid.
- Furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.
- Appear before the Registry of the High Court on specified dates.
The Court held that the conviction under Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC could not stand without proven age evidence, particularly when the scholar register's source was unverified.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Determination Is Not Presumptive
The judgment reinforces that age entries in scholar registers or other documents are not conclusive proof of minority unless the source of the age record is proven. Practitioners defending clients in POCSO cases must:
- Scrutinize the source of age records relied upon by the prosecution.
- Argue for the exclusion of age evidence if the source is unverified or based on guesswork.
- Highlight discrepancies in age records to create reasonable doubt about the victim's minority.
Burden of Proof Lies With the Prosecution
The Court's ruling clarifies that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt in POCSO cases. This includes:
- Establishing the reliability of the source of age records.
- Providing corroborative evidence where age records are disputed.
- Ensuring that medical or other scientific evidence is adduced where necessary.
Suspension of Sentence in POCSO Cases
The judgment demonstrates that suspension of sentence is not automatic in POCSO cases, but appellate courts may grant it where:
- There are substantial doubts about the conviction's correctness.
- The prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof on critical elements like age.
- The appellant's age at the time of the incident raises questions about the applicability of the POCSO Act.
Practitioners should emphasize these factors when seeking suspension of sentence in POCSO appeals.
