Court rules victim's age not conclusively proved under 18 years; conviction under POCSO Act quashed but confirms rape conviction with 12 years rigorous imprisonment
In a significant judgment delivered on August 21, 2026, the Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) in the case of Md. Majib Ali v. State of Assam and others, has modified the conviction of the appellant originally convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court set aside the conviction under the POCSO Act due to lack of conclusive proof regarding the victim's age but upheld the conviction under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of rape.
The case arose from an incident reported on October 10, 2019, where the appellant was accused of raping a girl near the Deosunga river in Baksa district. The victim's grandfather lodged the FIR stating that his granddaughter, then purportedly around 14-15 years old, was sexually assaulted. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine.
However, on appeal, the Gauhati High Court examined critical aspects of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the victim's age. The prosecution failed to produce the victim's school or birth certificates as evidence during the trial, though these documents were seized by the police and mentioned in the seizure list (Ext.5). The Court emphasized that merely exhibiting the seizure list without producing the actual documents or examining their authors rendered such evidence inadmissible, as per Supreme Court precedents (Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, 2009).
The medical officer's radiological examination placed the victim's age between 14 to 16 years. However, relying on established Supreme Court guidelines (Akula Raghuram v. State of A.P., 2025; Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023), the Court applied a margin of error of two years on either side for the ossification test, thus placing the victim's age possibly at 18 years at the time of the incident. Since the POCSO Act applies only to victims below 18 years, the Court held that the conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act could not be sustained.
Nonetheless, the Court unequivocally affirmed the occurrence of rape based on credible and corroborated evidence. The victim's testimony, corroborated by eyewitnesses (including her maternal aunt and relatives) and medical evidence of hymenal injury and recent penetration, was held reliable. Minor inconsistencies in the victim's statements about whether she went to fetch water or to defecate before the assault were deemed immaterial and did not undermine the prosecution's case.
The Court also rejected the defense's contention that related witnesses' testimony was unreliable, citing Supreme Court authority (State of U.P. v. Saman Das, 1972) that relationship alone does not discredit witness testimony absent proof of enmity or motive to falsely implicate.
Furthermore, the appellant's blanket denial during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., coupled with his unexplained presence at the crime scene and fleeing behavior, warranted an adverse inference against him, reinforcing the prosecution's case.
Consequently, while modifying the conviction by setting aside the POCSO Act conviction, the Gauhati High Court convicted Md. Majib Ali under Section 376(1) IPC for rape and sentenced him to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000, failing which he would undergo an additional six months of imprisonment.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of conclusive proof of victim's age in POCSO cases and affirms that rape convictions can be sustained under IPC even if POCSO provisions do not apply, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act is not sustainable if the prosecution fails to conclusively prove the victim's age as being below 18 years. However, if evidence establishes the occurrence of rape, the accused can be convicted under Section 376(1) IPC based on the testimony of the victim and corroborative evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 376(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Md. Majib Ali v. State of Assam, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2965087
