Delhi HC upholds man’s acquittal in POCSO case, says horoscope not proof of age

The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old girl, ruling that the horoscope and vaccination card were not proof of age and hence, he could not be prosecuted under the POCSO Act.

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said the survivor’s age is the “prime question” in cases under the POCSO Act, but the girl’s parents could neither state her date of birth nor produce an original birth certificate on record.

In his testimony, the girl’s father said his wife used their daughter’s horoscope — prepared at the time of her birth — for school admission.

However, the court said, “Admittedly, janam patri (horoscope) cannot be considered as proof of date of birth. Therefore, the age recorded in the school record based on the horoscope cannot also be considered as proof of age.” Date of birth in the Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card or vaccination card was also not legitimate, it said. In the judgment passed on Wednesday, the bench concluded that in the absence of “authentic” documents, the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, and therefore, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has no applicability in the case.

According to the prosecution, the girl, aged around 16 years, was kidnapped by the respondent in January 2013. She was found in Amritsar, following which the police booked the respondent for kidnap and rape under the Indian Penal Code and for penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

It said the girl rang home from a mobile phone, which led to the tracing of her location and the consequent arrest of the respondent from Amritsar railway station.

The respondent, however, claimed that he was falsely implicated.

A trial court acquitted him of all charges in July 2019.

The High Court said the prosecutrix’s testimony did not inspire confidence that it was of sterling quality, and was marked by material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies.

It observed that her testimony about the circumstances in which she left home, her prior contact with the accused and the events allegedly constituting the offence was inconsistent.

The court held that discrepancies went to the root of the prosecution’s case; the place and manner of the respondent’s arrest were also doubtful.

“The prosecution has failed to prove the respondent’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s findings do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference,” it said, upholding the trial court’s judgment.