The Supreme Court has held that a baptismal certificate issued by a private church authority cannot, by itself, establish a victim’s minority in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. However, the Court clarified that failure to prove the victim’s age for the purpose of the POCSO Act does not automatically absolve an accused if the prosecution has otherwise established the offence of rape.
The ruling was delivered in Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya, arising from an allegation that a 13-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted in Meghalaya. The accused had originally been convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had imposed 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, while the Meghalaya High Court upheld the conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the accused challenged the determination of the victim’s age. The prosecution had relied primarily on a baptismal certificate recording her date of birth. The Court noted that the prosecution had not produced the documents prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, such as an appropriate birth certificate or other statutorily recognised evidence of age. The baptismal certificate, therefore, could not sustain the finding that the victim was a child for the purposes of the POCSO Act.
Despite this finding, the Supreme Court held that the accused could still be convicted for rape under Section 376 of the IPC because the evidence established the commission of the sexual offence. The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria explained that Section 376 IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act involve cognate offences in circumstances where the underlying act is the same.
The Court also relied on Section 464 of the CrPC, which provides that a conviction is not automatically invalid merely because a formal charge was not framed or there was an error or omission in the charge, unless such an omission resulted in a failure of justice. On that basis, the Court held that an appellate court can convict an accused for the cognate offence of rape even where a specific charge under Section 376 IPC had not originally been framed, provided the accused had a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act because the victim’s minority had not been proved in accordance with the statutory requirements. However, it converted the conviction to one under Section 376 IPC and sentenced the appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. The conviction under Section 506 IPC was also maintained.
The judgment reinforces the importance of establishing a victim’s age through the legally prescribed evidence in POCSO prosecutions while making it clear that a technical failure concerning age does not necessarily defeat a prosecution for rape when the underlying offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
