The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the age of the prosecutrix. The Court also held that the evidence on record indicated the relationship was consensual and that a positive DNA report alone could not sustain the conviction.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Munna Ram against the judgment dated October 14, 2025, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Singrauli, in Special Case No. 23/2024. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to imprisonment.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home after being beaten by her father, travelled with him to Banaras, married him and lived with him as husband and wife. He further contended that the prosecution had failed to establish that she was a minor at the time of the incident.
The State opposed the appeal, relying on the prosecutrix's Class X marksheet, which recorded her date of birth as December 27, 2007, and argued that she was around 16 years old when the incident occurred in April 2024.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench closely examined the oral and documentary evidence relating to the prosecutrix's age. It found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of her parents regarding the year of her birth and the timeline of her schooling.
The Court also noted that no first school admission record or other primary document establishing her date of birth had been produced. It observed that the available school records did not conclusively prove the correctness of the recorded date of birth.
Referring to the prosecutrix's statement before the Magistrate and her testimony during trial, the Bench found that she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant and described their relationship as a marriage.
"The prosecutrix was a consenting party. Further, her date of birth has not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution," the Bench observed.
The Court further held,
"Mere positivity of the DNA report, by itself, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant."
Decision
Holding that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and surrounding circumstances, the High Court set aside the conviction and allowed the criminal appeal. It directed that the appellant, who was in custody, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Details:
Case Title: Munna Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Decision Date: June 25, 2026
