The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the prosecution’s burden to prove a victim’s minority under the POCSO Act can be discharged through reliable documentary evidence, even when oral testimony is inconsistent. The judgment underscores that confident victim testimony, unsupported by medical evidence or an Investigating Officer, remains sufficient for conviction if no material contradictions exist.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Lalu @ Sanju Bhisan Sonawane, was convicted under Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for the kidnapping and sexual assault of a girl child. The incident occurred on 25.03.2020, when the victim, aged between 13 and 15 years at the time, was allegedly abducted while returning home from a field where her father was working. She was taken to a shed near Kolambi river, sexually assaulted multiple times that night, and later brought to the accused’s sister’s house, where police found her.
Key Facts
- The victim was admitted to Z.P. Primary School, Shafepur, in Class I on 21.06.2012.
- The school admission register recorded her date of birth as 24.01.2005.
- The incident occurred on 25.03.2020, making her 15 years and 2 months old according to school records.
- The victim’s father, PW2, is illiterate and did not produce a birth certificate or any official document to the police.
- In her testimony, the victim stated she was 16 years old at the time of trial, but in cross-examination, she admitted she was above 18 years on 25.03.2020.
- The father stated in chief that his daughter was 13 to 14 years old on the date of the incident.
- The medical examination (PW5) was conducted on 27.03.2020, two days after the incident. The doctor noted no fresh hymenal tear or signs of force but recorded the victim’s statement that she was sexually assaulted after being forced to remove her clothes.
- The Investigating Officer (IO) was not examined by the prosecution.
- The FIR was initially filed against an unknown person on 26.03.2020.
- The charge sheet was filed on 15.07.2020.
- The trial concluded on 27.04.2023, with the Special Judge (POCSO) convicting the appellant.
Procedural History
- 25.03.2020: Incident occurred.
- 26.03.2020: FIR No. 68/2020 registered at Pishor Police Station against unknown person.
- 15.07.2020: Charge sheet filed naming the appellant.
- 27.04.2023: Special Judge (POCSO), Aurangabad, convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4(2), 6 of POCSO Act.
- 25.03.2026: Bombay High Court delivered judgment on Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 2023.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that the victim was not a minor on 25.03.2020, citing her cross-examination admission of being above 18 years.
- Contended that the absence of a birth certificate or parental signature on school records invalidated the school’s date of birth.
- Asserted that the medical report did not confirm sexual assault due to lack of physical injuries or fresh hymenal tear.
- Claimed that non-examination of the IO deprived the defence of an opportunity to expose contradictions or omissions in the investigation.
For the Respondent (State and Victim)
- Maintained that the school admission record was a reliable, contemporaneous document establishing the victim’s age.
- Argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent, credible, and unshaken in cross-examination.
- Stated that the absence of medical corroboration is not fatal in POCSO cases, especially when the victim is a minor.
- Emphasized that non-examination of the IO is not fatal if no material contradictions exist in witness testimonies.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the conviction and acquittal on grounds of insufficient proof of minority, lack of medical evidence, absence of independent corroboration, and prejudice caused by non-examination of the IO.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the prosecution successfully proved the victim was a minor on 25.03.2020 despite conflicting oral testimony, and (2) Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and absence of medical corroboration vitiate the conviction under the POCSO Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on the victim’s cross-examination admission that she was above 18 years on the date of the incident to challenge the applicability of the POCSO Act. He argued that the school records were unreliable because the admission application lacked parental signatures and thumb impressions were not attested. He further contended that the medical expert’s inability to confirm sexual activity due to absence of fresh injuries rendered the rape charge unproven. He cited Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra to argue that non-examination of the IO is fatal when the defence is deprived of an opportunity to test the investigation’s integrity.
For the Respondent
The State and victim’s counsel countered that school records, especially those maintained by educational institutions, are presumptively reliable under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. They emphasized that the victim’s testimony was consistent, detailed, and unimpeached on material aspects. They cited Munnalal v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue that non-examination of the IO is not fatal if the prosecution’s case stands on its own without material contradictions. They also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh to assert that medical evidence is not indispensable in POCSO cases where the victim’s testimony inspires confidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous re-appreciation of evidence, particularly on the issue of age, which is foundational to invoking the POCSO Act. It acknowledged the victim’s contradictory statement in cross-examination but held that such a single admission, made by a minor witness under pressure, cannot override a contemporaneous, official record.
"Merely because father failed to narrate the date of birth, he being illiterate, and though victim herself admitted, that too in cross, that she was above 18 years of age at the time of incident, the testimony of PW3 cannot be discarded or brushed aside."
The Court emphasized that the school admission register, maintained by an independent public officer (the Headmistress), was created at the time of enrollment in 2012 - nearly eight years before the incident - and thus qualifies as a public document under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The absence of parental signatures or attestation was deemed immaterial, as the school’s internal record-keeping practices do not invalidate the document’s evidentiary value.
Regarding the medical evidence, the Court noted that the absence of physical injuries or fresh hymenal tear was expected given the two-day delay in examination. It held that in cases involving minors, the victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient for conviction even without medical corroboration. The Court cited State of U.P. v. Krishna and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh to affirm that consent is irrelevant when the victim is a minor.
On the issue of non-examination of the IO, the Court observed that while the practice is discouraged, it is not fatal if the prosecution’s case is otherwise robust. The Court found no material contradiction in the testimonies of PW1, PW2, or PW3, and no specific prejudice was demonstrated by the defence. The Court held:
"Mere submissions that prejudice has been caused to the defence holds no substance. On the contrary, having gone through the evidence of victim, the same inspires confidence."
The Court concluded that the prosecution had discharged its burden on all essential ingredients of the offences under the POCSO Act and IPC.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld. The appellant’s sentence remains in force. The Court directed that the fees of the counsel appointed to represent the victim be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
School Records Are Conclusive for Age Determination
- Practitioners must treat school admission registers as primary evidence of age in POCSO cases, even if parents are illiterate or did not submit birth certificates.
- Oral testimony contradicting school records must be evaluated with caution, especially when given by minors under cross-examination.
- Courts will prioritize contemporaneous, official documents over later, potentially coerced or confused statements.
Victim Testimony Alone Can Sustain POCSO Convictions
- Medical evidence is not mandatory; absence of injuries or forensic confirmation does not automatically create reasonable doubt.
- Consistency in the victim’s narrative, identification of the accused, and absence of motive to falsely implicate are sufficient for conviction.
- The law presumes that a minor victim’s testimony, if credible, is inherently reliable under Section 114A of the Evidence Act.
Non-Examination of IO Is Not Fatal Without Demonstrated Prejudice
- Defence must specify what material contradictions or omissions would have been exposed had the IO been examined.
- General allegations of prejudice without pointing to specific inconsistencies in witness statements will not invalidate a conviction.
- Courts will assess whether the prosecution’s case is independently credible before deciding whether non-examination of the IO is fatal.
