The Patna High Court has reversed the conviction in a case related to sexual offenses against a minor. This decision was made because the trial court failed to establish the age of the victim, even though the accused had raised this issue during the trial.

The court emphasized that it falls within the responsibility of the trial court to determine the age of the victim, particularly when it is contested during the proceedings under Section 34(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The division bench, consisting of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Nawneet Kumar Pandey, noted that, according to the provisions of Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, it is mandatory for the trial court to establish the age of the victim. However, the trial court did not make any efforts to determine the age of the victim in this case.

Upon a basic examination of this provision, it becomes evident that the trial court was obligated to ascertain the age of the victim, especially since the appellant had raised concerns about the victim's age. Consequently, the presumptions outlined in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act do not apply in this particular case, according to the bench's statement.

The mentioned ruling was the result of an appeal lodged by the accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this appeal, the accused sought to overturn the judgment of conviction and the associated sentence issued by the Special Judge (POCSO) in Saharsa. The appellant had been found guilty under Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The purported incident took place while the victim, a 12-year-old minor girl, was engaged in the task of collecting or cutting grass. According to the prosecution's account, the appellant arrived at the location, forcibly subdued the victim, sexually assaulted her, and wielded a sharp object (referred to as a "Kachiya") near her neck, threatening to harm her if she made any noise.

Both the victim and her parents gave statements confirming that when the victim raised an alarm, PW 7, who was also involved in cutting grass near the location of the incident, came to the scene. However, PW 7 provided a contrasting account, asserting that the victim approached her, screaming for help.

The Court noted that there existed a significant contradiction in the statements provided by the witnesses.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the victim did not mention that the appellant had a "Kachiya" with him or that he had threatened her with it, despite including these details in her Fardbeyan (initial complaint) and her deposition. This inconsistency raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case.

The Court emphasized that concerning the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the doctor could not discover any evidence of sexual assault.

Considering the numerous material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, the Court reached the following conclusion: “From careful scrutiny of the evidence available with the record, we do not find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The above-noted circumstances make the prosecution case doubtful and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubts.”

Based on these observations, the Court overturned the conviction and the associated sentence, thereby allowing the appeal. As a result, the Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant, who had been in custody.