The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling that makes it tougher for individuals accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to escape conviction by questioning how a victim's age is determined. The court firmly stated that age can be established through any legally permissible method, not exclusively via the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015.
Court Upholds Conviction, Rejects Appeal
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas upheld the conviction and ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a man found guilty of raping a minor girl. This decision came as the court dismissed the accused's appeal against a 2019 trial court verdict. The judge emphasized that sexual offences exploiting the innocence of childhood must be dealt with sternly.
Key Legal Clarification on Age Determination
In its observation, the court highlighted a crucial point. "When the mode of determination of the age of a victim has not been specifically delineated in any statute, there cannot be any absolute restriction for entertaining any other mode for determination of the age of a victim in a POCSO offence," Justice Thomas noted.
The ruling specifically addresses Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act. The court clarified that this section does not mandate exclusive reliance on juvenile justice laws for verifying a victim's age. This interpretation prevents legal loopholes that could allow perpetrators to go free.
Why This Ruling Matters
The court warned that a restrictive view could defeat the very purpose of the POCSO statute. It might enable several perpetrators of sexual offences to escape conviction entirely. By allowing multiple legal modes for age proof, the judgment strengthens the legal framework protecting children.
Details of the Case and Evidence
The prosecution alleged that the accused raped a minor girl in her own home. After thorough analysis, the trial court found him guilty under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
The convict's counsel argued that the victim's age was not properly proved. They claimed the birth certificate presented did not clearly identify the victim, mentioning only her parents' names, and could possibly relate to the victim's sister. Based on this, the accused sought the benefit of doubt.
Court's Assessment of the Evidence
The High Court found the victim's testimony to be unwavering and of sterling quality. It was medically corroborated and supported by other witnesses. The court noted no significant inconsistencies emerged during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Importantly, the victim had specifically deposed her date of birth during proceedings. This deposition was not challenged at all, and no questions were put to her regarding her age. Furthermore, in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused did not specifically dispute the victim's age.
The court concluded that the substantive evidence clearly indicated the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly. This ruling reinforces that when foundational facts are established through credible evidence, technical arguments about age proof should not derail justice.
