High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Act Case Due to Inadequate Age Proof and Inadmissible Evidence. Conviction Under Sections 6 of POCSO Act, 366 and 376 of IPC Overturned

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 of IPC and Section 366 of IPC, involving alleged abduction and sexual assault of a minor. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that prosecution failed to prove the victim's age through admissible evidence. Key documents (Exhibit P23 and P18) were held inadmissible due to being Xerox copies, lacking proper certification, and being obtained during investigation. The court emphasized the necessity of strict age proof for POCSO Act applicability and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Headnote

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -- The Court held that prosecution failed to prove victim's age through admissible evidence -- Exhibit P23 was a Xerox copy of birth certificate without victim's name and violated Section 10 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 -- Exhibit P18 was a communication from school authorities obtained during investigation and hit by Section 162 of CrPC -- Prosecution did not examine author of documents or obtain certificate under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -- Without age proof, offence under POCSO Act could not be established -- Conviction was based on inadmissible evidence and procedural lapses

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the prosecution proved the victim's age to establish offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 366, 376 of IPC

 

2026 LawText (KAR) (02) 24

Criminal Appeal No.1357 of 2024

2026-02-27

G Basavaraja J.

Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for Sri. Nityanand V. Naik (Appellant), Sri. B. Lakshman, HCGP (Respondent 1), Sri. Rajath H.V. (Respondent 2)

Ramachandra S/o. Thimmaiah

The State of Karnataka, Victim Girl represented by father Lingappa S/o Dyamappa

Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction for sexual offences involving a minor

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of conviction and sentence, and acquittal

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Sections 366 and 376 of IPC

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment with fine under POCSO Act and IPC

Issues

Whether prosecution proved victim's age to establish offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act Whether documents produced by prosecution were admissible evidence

Submissions/Arguments

Exhibit P23 was Xerox copy of birth certificate without victim's name and violated Section 10 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Exhibit P18 was communication from school obtained during investigation and hit by Section 162 of CrPC Prosecution did not examine author of documents or obtain certificate under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act Without age proof, offence under POCSO Act could not be established

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution must strictly prove victim's age through admissible documents for POCSO Act applicability -- Documents obtained during investigation without author examination are inadmissible -- Xerox copies without certification cannot establish age -- Failure to prove age vitiates conviction under POCSO Act

Judgment Excerpts

Exhibit P23- Birth Certificate is only a Xerox copy, in which the name of the victim is not shown Exhibit P18 is not a birth certificate extract or School Admission Register Extract. It is only a communication of fact that the school authorities have issued the same at the request of the Investigating Officer, and the same is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure Since the prosecution has not produced the relevant documents to prove the age of the child as on the date of commission of offence, the question of constituting the offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not arise

Procedural History

Charge sheet filed for offences under IPC, POCSO Act, and Child Marriage Act -- Trial court convicted appellant -- Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of CrPC -- High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 09.01.2026 -- Judgment delivered on 27.02.2026

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Act Case Due to Inadequate Age Proof and Inadmissible Evidence. Conviction Under Sections 6 of POCSO Act, 366 and 376 of IPC Overturned
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in International Arbitration Agreements. Supreme Court Rules on Applicability of Indian Law and Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Arbitration Disputes