Case Name: Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya

Factual Background

The appellant challenged his conviction for offences under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The prosecution alleged that on 26 November 2019, the appellant sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl in Meghalaya. The Special Judge (POCSO) convicted him on 16 June 2021 and sentenced him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and two years under Section 506 IPC. The Meghalaya High Court upheld the conviction on 8 July 2024.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant primarily challenged the proof of the victim’s age. The prosecution relied upon a Baptismal Certificate recording her date of birth as 5 March 2006. The appellant argued that this was not a document recognised under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), and that neither a proper age-determination test nor the prescribed documentary evidence had been produced.

Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the statutory mechanism under Section 94 of the JJ Act, referring to Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh and P. Yuvaprakash v. State. The Court reiterated that age must ordinarily be established, in sequence, through the school date-of-birth certificate or matriculation/equivalent certificate; in their absence, a birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipality or panchayat; and only thereafter through ossification or another latest medical age-determination test.

In the present case, none of the prescribed documents had been obtained, nor had the victim undergone an age-determination test. The only document was the Baptismal Certificate. Although corroborated by the mother’s testimony, the Court held that it did not satisfy Section 94. Accordingly, the prosecution had failed to establish the victim’s minority in the manner required by law.

The Court nevertheless held that the failure to establish minority did not negate the evidence of rape. Medical evidence, forensic evidence, the victim’s identification of the appellant and other prosecution evidence established penetrative sexual assault. Since the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC and penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 POCSO substantially overlap, the absence of a separately framed charge under Section 376 IPC was not fatal. Under Section 464 CrPC, an omission in framing a charge is not material unless it results in a failure of justice. The accused had been given a fair opportunity to defend the allegations forming the basis of the POCSO charge.

Order of the Court

The Supreme Court modified the conviction. The POCSO conviction could not be sustained because minority had not been established in accordance with Section 94 JJ Act. However, the Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC for rape under Section 375 IPC and maintained the conviction under Section 506 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with an additional six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Key Takeaway

The judgment clarifies that strict compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act is essential for establishing a POCSO victim’s age. However, failure to prove minority does not automatically defeat a prosecution for rape where the ingredients of rape are independently established. An appellate court may sustain conviction under Section 376 IPC in the absence of a separate charge where the accused had adequate notice of the allegations and no failure of justice was caused.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa