Victim’s Age Not Proved Under Section 94 JJ Act: Supreme Court Converts POCSO Conviction to Rape Under Section 376 IPC

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that a church baptismal certificate is not one of the documents prescribed by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for proving a victim’s age, so the prosecution failed to prove minority for the POCSO charge. But finding rape itself proved, it convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC, though no such charge had been framed, holding there was no failure of justice under Section 464 CrPC, and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant was tried by a Special Court in Meghalaya for an offence alleged in November 2019 against a girl stated to be 13 years old, and was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC, receiving 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence. The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed his appeal in July 2024.

Before the Supreme Court, he argued that the victim’s age was never proved in the manner required by Section 94 of the JJ Act, as explained in P. Yuvaprakash v. State, (2023) 07 SC CK 0038: the only document was a baptismal certificate issued by a church body, which was only marked, and no ossification test was done. The State relied on concurrent findings, the mother’s evidence and the baptismal record.

The Key Question Before the Court

If the prosecution fails to prove the victim was a minor in the manner the JJ Act prescribes, does the accused walk free, or can he be convicted of rape under the IPC even without a framed charge?

Age Proof and Cognate Offences

Following Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 07 SC CK 0119, State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh, (2015) 07 SC CK 0043 and P. Yuvaprakash, the Court reiterated that Section 94 of the JJ Act applies to POCSO victims and sets a hierarchy of documents, with medical opinion only as a fallback. Here the investigating officer collected none of the prescribed documents and no medical age test was done; the baptismal certificate, though corroborated by the mother, was “not the one prescribed under Section 94”. It distinguished Luis Caetano Viegas, (2002) 05 SC CK 0044, an inheritance case where a birth certificate had also been proved.

The Court then held that rape was established by the evidence and that failure to prove age did not wipe that out. Section 375 IPC and Section 3 POCSO share the same act; minority is the distinguishing element. Applying Sections 464, 222 and 386 CrPC and decisions including Rafiq Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2011) 08 SC CK 0101, Shamnsaheb M. Multtani, (2001) 01 SC CK 0004, Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 04 SC CK 0130 and Willie (William) Slaney, (1955) 10 SC CK 0020, it found the appellant knew the case he had to meet and had a full opportunity to defend himself, so convicting him under Section 376 caused no failure of justice.

What the Court Actually Held

• The prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age as required by Section 94 of the JJ Act.
• A baptismal certificate from a church body is not a document prescribed under Section 94.
• The appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000.
• The conviction and two-year sentence under Section 506 IPC were upheld; the appeal was partly allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It is a strong reminder to investigators to collect Section 94 documents in every POCSO case.
• It shows that a failed age proof does not automatically lead to acquittal where the act itself is proved.
• It applies the cognate-offence and no-failure-of-justice principles to POCSO and IPC charges.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Prosecutors and Investigators

• Obtain school, matriculation or municipal birth records, or a medical age test, at the investigation stage.
• Ask trial courts to frame alternative charges under the IPC or BNS where age may be contested.

For Defence Counsel

• Challenge non-compliance with Section 94 on age, but address the alternative offence too.
• Argue prejudice specifically if relying on the absence of a framed charge.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. The POCSO finding failed on age, but he was convicted of rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 10 years.

Because it is not among the documents Section 94 of the JJ Act prescribes, and no medical age determination was done.

Yes, where the offences are cognate and the accused had a fair chance to defend himself, so there is no failure of justice.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →