Section 5 Of POCSO Act | No Liability If Accused Lacked Knowledge Regarding Victim’s Age During Intercourse: Madras HC
The Madras High Court held that for liability under Section 5 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), it is crucial to prove that the accused was fully aware of the victim's age during the alleged sexual intercourse.
The Court allowed a Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed against the Accused under the POCSO Act.
In light of the circumstances, the Court overturned the appellant's conviction under Section 5(1) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, noting that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges.
The Bench of Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan observed, “without any evidence, on the side of the prosecution to prove that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her with the knowledge that victim is minor, the charge framed under Section 5(l) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act is not made out”.
Advocate M. Asif Mohammed appeared for the Appellant and Government Advocate R. Sivakumar appeared for the State.
The appellant, the sole accused, filed a criminal appeal contesting his conviction for engaging in a romantic relationship with a neighbour, resulting in the victim's pregnancy. Charged under the POCSO Act, the appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial Judge, after considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant. Displeased with the verdict, the appellant filed this appeal before the High Court.
The Court noted that to establish the age of the victim girl, the prosecution presented documents from the school record. According to Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Rules), in the absence of an SSLC certificate, any document from the school must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, in the case of Yuvaprakash v State Represented by the Inspector of Police, emphasized the need for authentication in such cases.
The Court noted that the retired Headmaster confirmed admitting the victim girl on June 19 2008 in the fourth standard but did not provide evidence of making endorsements based on a birth certificate or any other authentic document. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the age of the victim girl, a crucial element in establishing the offence under the POCSO Act.
Due to the lack of age proof, the Bench noted that the charges framed against the Appellant under Section 5(1) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act were deemed unsubstantiated. Without supporting evidence indicating the appellant's knowledge of the victim's minor status during sexual intercourse, the Court held that the charges under Section 5(1) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be upheld. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.
Cause Title: Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu v State
