MUMBAI: As the law meant to protect children from sexual offences (Pocso) is a stringent act, the prosecution has the burden to prove the age of the minority with strict proof, said a special designated court on January 31, acquitting a man for want of such proof.
Special Judge Priti Kumar (Ghule), designated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012, at Mumbai sessions court held that in a case registered in 2020 in Mumbai, the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that the girl was below 18 years of age.
"Hence, it is inferred that the applicability of Pocso Act is not proved," said the court, acquitting a 25-year-old accused of sexually assaulting a 16-yr-old. The court said her birth certificate was made in 2016, 11 years after her birth, doesn't inspire confidence and raises doubt of the genuineness of source of information. Besides, her mother was looking for a groom for her which means she is a major, said the acquittal judgment.
Special public prosecutor V D More examined six witnesses and her birth certificate to try and establish the case of rape of a minor.
The complainant, mother, has three daughters aged 21, 20 and 16 and their father resides out of Mumbai and eldest daughter is married, residing elsewhere. On November 29, 2020, she had asked her youngest daughter to go home and get water but the daughter went missing. She lodged a kidnap complaint the next day against the accused, went to his house in another district few days later on learning that she was there and got her back. The daughter alleged he had forced himself on her and took her to his village. The doctor deposed the injury was not fresh.
Defence lawyer Ajay Lad disputed the birth date and said the mother is unable to tell her daughter's exact date and said a photocopy of birth certificate collected by the police, a "secondary evidence" is not proved by the prosecution. The girl said she did not go to any school and the accused was arrested 20 days after the FIR mentioned his name, thus creating doubt of his involvement, said Lad.
The court said the mother and daughter's deposition has lacuna and prosecution produced birth certificate when evidence was recorded and "source of information of birth record is not proper".
"Mere production of birth certificate during evidence is not proper...," said the Court saying the certificate was "not collected by IO during investigation'' .
(The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
