The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that in cases under the POCSO Act, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that a sexual act was non-consensual, even when the victim is a minor. Mere proof of age is insufficient without credible evidence of coercion, enticement, or violation. This judgment underscores the primacy of evidentiary consistency over presumptions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from an FIR registered on 12.09.2012 under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The complainant, PW-2, alleged that his 16-year-old daughter, PW-1, had been kidnapped and raped by the respondent, Ajay Kumar, after she went missing on 09.09.2012. The accused was apprehended on 22.01.2014, along with the victim, and charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added. The case was committed to the Sessions Court on 05.04.2014.
Key Facts
- The victim, PW-1, was born on 26.10.1996, making her 15 years and 10 months old at the time of the alleged incident (12.09.2012).
- A School Leaving Certificate (Ex. PW5/B) was produced to establish her age, dated 26.10.1996.
- The Pariwar Register (Ex. PW4/A) was also relied upon but deemed non-conclusive.
- The victim was declared hostile during trial. In her examination-in-chief, she stated she did not remember the date of the alleged occurrence and denied being enticed or harmed.
- She admitted to having married the accused and living with him as husband and wife.
- She confirmed the birth of a child in April 2014, who died shortly after birth.
- The victim explicitly stated in cross-examination that she left home of her own volition, was not allured, and had no intention of returning to her parental home.
- PW-2 (father) initially lodged the FIR but later denied its contents, claiming he believed his daughter was with her maternal aunt (Massi) and that no enticement occurred.
- PW-3 (mother) also denied any wrongdoing by the accused and corroborated the victim’s version that the accused did not visit their home.
- The accused did not lead any evidence.
Procedural History
- 12.09.2012: FIR No. 212 of 2012 registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba.
- 22.01.2014: Accused and victim apprehended; medical examination conducted.
- 05.04.2014: Charges committed to Sessions Court by Chief Judicial Magistrate.
- 19.03.2015: Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, holding prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- 16.03.2026: Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal.
Relief Sought
The State sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, arguing that the victim’s minority and the birth of a child established the offence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether proof of the victim’s minority under the POCSO Act, coupled with the birth of a child, is sufficient to establish guilt for rape and kidnapping in the absence of any corroborative or consistent testimony from the victim or her parents, especially when both have retracted the allegations and affirmed consensual cohabitation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State contended that the victim’s age (16 years at the time of the incident) automatically triggered the protections of the POCSO Act, and the birth of a child within the period of cohabitation created a strong presumption of sexual violation. It argued that the hostile testimony of the victim and her parents was the result of coercion or social pressure, and the court should not rely on such retracted statements. The State cited State v. Ramesh (2019) to argue that in POCSO cases, the court must be cautious in accepting retracted statements and should rely on medical and documentary evidence.
For the Respondent
The defence argued that the prosecution’s entire case collapsed due to the unequivocal retraction by the victim, who affirmed consensual marriage and cohabitation. The absence of any independent evidence linking the accused to a non-consensual act, combined with the victim’s repeated denials, rendered the charges unsustainable. The defence relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna (2021), which held that the POCSO Act does not create a presumption of guilt based solely on age or pregnancy; the prosecution must prove the act was non-consensual and unlawful.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that while the POCSO Act is a protective statute, it does not dispense with the fundamental requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the victim, PW-1, was the sole eyewitness to the alleged act, and her testimony was not only inconsistent but entirely exculpatory. She explicitly stated that no one had enticed her, no wrong had been done to her, and she was living happily with the accused as his wife.
"She had categorically stated that she was not below 18 years. She had admitted the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. ... there is no incriminating substance against the respondent/accused."
The Court further observed that the father’s initial FIR was contradicted by his subsequent testimony, where he denied giving the statement and claimed the daughter had returned voluntarily. The mother’s testimony was equally unhelpful to the prosecution. The Court held that the birth of a child, while circumstantial, could not be linked to the accused without evidence of non-consensual intercourse. The absence of medical reports, eyewitnesses, or any corroborative material rendered the prosecution’s case speculative.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that appellate courts cannot substitute their own view for that of the trial court if the latter’s findings are plausible. The Sessions Judge’s acquittal was based on a careful evaluation of hostile witnesses and the lack of credible evidence - a conclusion the High Court found entirely justified.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent, Ajay Kumar, by the Sessions Judge dated 19.03.2015 was upheld. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed any offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC or Section 4 of the POCSO Act. No conviction, sentence, or fine was imposed. The accused was discharged from all charges.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Testimony Cannot Be Ignored, Even in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must treat retracted or hostile testimony by the victim as a critical evidentiary hurdle, not a procedural anomaly.
- Prosecutors cannot rely on age or pregnancy alone to establish guilt; the burden remains on the State to prove non-consensual conduct.
- Courts must evaluate the totality of evidence, including post-facto statements, and cannot presume coercion without corroboration.
Documentary Age Proof Is Not Conclusive Without Consistent Narrative
- School certificates and Pariwar registers may establish age but cannot substitute for testimonial consistency.
- If the victim affirms consensual cohabitation, the prosecution must produce independent evidence - such as medical reports, third-party witnesses, or digital communication - to rebut the victim’s version.
- In cases where the victim and family later reconcile with the accused, the court must scrutinize the motive behind the initial complaint.
Prosecution Must Avoid Overreliance on Presumptions
- The POCSO Act does not create a presumption of guilt based on age or pregnancy.
- Courts must apply the same standard of proof as in other criminal cases: beyond reasonable doubt.
- Defence counsel should aggressively challenge the evidentiary chain when the victim’s testimony is exculpatory, even if the accused is an adult.
