The High Court of Madhya Pradesh on August 14, 2025, set aside the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, acquitting him of all charges while making strong observations about the functioning of lower courts. A division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh held that the trial court committed serious procedural irregularities and that the evidence regarding the victim’s age was unreliable, necessitating that the benefit of the doubt be given to the appellant.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed against a judgment dated October 9, 2023, by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balaghat. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7, 10, and 20 years, respectively, along with fines.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel, Shri Chintransh Shrivastava, argued that the case was one of consent, contending that the victim was an adult at the time of the incident. The primary submission was that the trial court and the prosecution had ignored a crucial X-ray report dated June 28, 2021. This report, which the prosecution did not exhibit, indicated that the ossification centers of the victim’s iliac crest, radius, and ulna had fused, leading a radiologist to estimate her age at approximately 17 years. Citing Modi’s “Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology,” the counsel argued that such tests have a margin of error of up to two years, which would place the victim in the age of majority.
Furthermore, the appellant challenged the school-recorded date of birth of December 24, 2004, pointing out that both of the victim’s parents testified that they did not know her actual date of birth and had not provided any official documents to the school.
Representing the state, Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal, submitting that the conviction was sound as the DNA report was positive and the date of birth recorded in the school register had not been disputed.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court conducted a thorough review of the evidence and trial court record, noting several significant discrepancies and procedural failures. It found the documentary evidence of the victim’s age to be unreliable, given the parents’ testimony.
On Procedural Lapses by the Trial Court: The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the trial court’s handling of the case. In a striking observation, the bench noted, “It is surprising to note that despite regular training in the Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy, learned trial Courts are consistently failing to perform their duties as a Judge.”
The court highlighted two major errors in this context:
- Failure to Examine Accused on DNA Report: The court found it “surprising” that despite the DNA report (Ex.C/1) being exhibited, the trial court “did not deem it proper to record supplementary statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and confront him to the circumstances which appeared against him.”
- Ignoring the Ossification Test Report: The court described as a “horrific aspect” the trial court’s failure to consider the X-ray report, which was available on record. The judgment noted, “This report prima facie appears to be in favour of the accused.”
The bench cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Jayamala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu Kashmir (AIR 1982 SC 1297), which affirms that ossification tests have a margin of error of one to two years.
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s irregularities and the unreliable evidence regarding the victim’s age warranted the appellant’s acquittal. The court stated, “…as per the ossification report which was promptly drawn within one month of the incident, since there can be an error of a year or two and when that error is taken into consideration, then victim will be deemed to be an adult, benefit is required to be accrued in favour of the appellant.”
“Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges,” the court ordered, directing that the appellant be released immediately.
