Supreme Court: if a victim's age isn't proved under the JJ Act, a POCSO rape conviction becomes one under the IPC

The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal by a man convicted in Meghalaya under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's only document on the victim's age was a baptismal certificate issued by a church body, which had been marked but not formally exhibited. Although the victim's mother corroborated the date of birth, the Court held that the certificate is not a document prescribed by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, so the prosecution had failed to prove the victim's age in the manner the law requires. The POCSO charge therefore failed.

However, the medical, forensic and eyewitness evidence clearly established rape. The Court held that Section 375 IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act share the same actus reus and differ only in the victim's minority, making them cognate offences. Relying on Sections 222, 386 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it held that an appellate court may convict for the cognate offence without a separate charge where the accused had a fair chance to defend himself and there is no failure of justice. It convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC, reduced the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, and upheld his conviction for criminal intimidation.