POCSO Conviction Modified to IPC Rape Where Victim Age Not Proved Under JJ Act

The appellant Pynchemalangaki Bareh was convicted by the Special POCSO Court and the Meghalaya High Court for penetrative sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. Before the Supreme Court, he challenged the conviction primarily arguing that the victim's minority was not proved in accordance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, since the prosecution relied solely on a Baptismal Certificate issued by the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Assembly rather than on school birth certificates, matriculation certificates, municipal birth certificates, or an ossification test as required by law. The Supreme Court accepted this argument, holding that a Baptismal Certificate is not one of the documents prescribed under Section 94 of the JJ Act for proving a victim's age in POCSO cases. Referring to its earlier judgments in Jarnail Singh, State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh, and P. Yuvaprakash, the Court reaffirmed the mandatory hierarchy of documents for age determination. However, the Court held that the factum of rape was conclusively established by medical evidence, FSL reports, the victim's testimony, and corroboration from multiple witnesses. Applying Section 464 and Section 386 of the Cr.PC and Section 222, the Court held that the accused could be convicted under Section 376 IPC for rape even without a separate charge being framed, since the ingredients of Section 3 POCSO Act and Section 375 IPC are identical, and the accused had a full opportunity to defend himself. The Court accordingly modified the conviction, sentencing the appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 376 IPC, while confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC.

On 26 November 2019, the victim, a 13-year-old girl from Sutnga village, East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya, was allegedly raped by the appellant, a resident of the same village, at Mokoidaling. An FIR was lodged on 27 November 2019 by the victim's mother. The case was investigated by Khliehriat Women Police Station and a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC after examining 14 prosecution witnesses, and the High Court of Meghalaya upheld the conviction in 2024.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority as required under Section 94 of the JJ Act since only a Baptismal Certificate was produced, and accordingly the POCSO conviction was not sustainable. However, finding rape conclusively established by medical and other evidence, the Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, while confirming the conviction under Section 506 IPC. The appeal was partly allowed.

This judgment clarifies that in POCSO cases, a victim's age cannot be proved merely through a Baptismal Certificate — only school certificates, municipal birth certificates, or medical tests as prescribed by Section 94 of the JJ Act are acceptable. It also establishes that when a POCSO charge fails due to inability to prove the victim's minority, courts can still convict the accused for rape under IPC if the act is otherwise proved, preventing guilty persons from escaping punishment on technical grounds.