POCSO prosecutions stand on two legs: the act and the age. In Imran v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 133/2022, decided on 30 October 2026, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav affirmed the core of a 2021 conviction on the victim's reliable testimony — yet set aside the POCSO Section 4 conviction entirely, because the prosecution's age evidence did not satisfy the hierarchy in Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The judgment is a textbook treatment of how age must be proved, what happens when it is not, and how an appellate court recalibrates conviction and sentence when the victim must be treated as a major.
The case
The prosecutrix went to the appellant's tailoring shop in June 2017 to collect a suit; the prosecution case was that he drove her instead to an isolated area and assaulted her, later threatening her into silence. The FIR followed a week after disclosure to her parents. The trial court convicted under Section 4 POCSO and Sections 366, 376(2) and 506 Part-II IPC, imposing fifteen years on the rape count.
Two findings pulling in opposite directions
On the act
The victim's account was consistent on the core; the date discrepancy was never put to her in cross-examination; the medical record of injury was compatible with her version; the hostile witness and absence of CCTV were not fatal. Conviction sustainable on her sole testimony.
On the age
School documents repeating an unsourced entry are not a date of birth certificate under Section 94(2) JJ Act. No author of the entry examined, no municipal certificate produced, no ossification test. Minority not proved; POCSO and the under-16 aggravation both fall.
The legal mechanics of the alteration
With the victim treated as a major, Section 376(2) in the form charged could not stand, because the applicable aggravating clause presupposed a victim under sixteen. Using the power to convict for a lesser offence made out on the same facts, the court altered the conviction to Section 376(1) IPC — the appellant had contested exactly those facts, so no prejudice arose. The Section 366 conviction survived on the deceitful inducement, and Section 506 Part-II on the threats. On sentence, the minimum for Section 376(1) at the time of the offence was seven years; later enhancements could not be applied retrospectively under Article 20(1). The appellant had served about seven years, six months and nine days — beyond the minimum — and the court held that term sufficient, directing release.
What investigators and defence counsel should take from it
- For the prosecution: age proof must be built the way Section 94(2) reads — obtain the certificate at the top of the hierarchy, examine the person who made the original entry, and if documentary proof is shaky, seek an ossification test during investigation, not after.
- For the defence: the provenance of school entries is a legitimate and often decisive line of cross-examination. An entry is only as good as its source document and its author.
- For sentencing: where custody already exceeds the lawful minimum for the surviving offence, the period-undergone disposition is a recognised outcome, and set-off should be computed precisely.
- For both sides: alteration of charge on appeal is permissible where the facts were squarely contested; prejudice, not labels, is the test.
Practice note: This judgment pairs instructively with the same week's decision affirming a Section 6 POCSO conviction where school records were consistent with parental testimony. The difference is not the kind of document but its foundation: an entry traced to a source proves age; an entry floating free does not.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is a victim's age proved in POCSO cases?
Courts apply the hierarchy in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act: first the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation certificate; failing that, a birth certificate from the municipal authority or panchayat; and only in their absence, an ossification or other medical age test. An entry whose original source is not established does not satisfy the first category.
Why did the school records fail here?
The admission form, register entry and principal's certificate merely repeated an entry whose basis was never proved — the person who made it and the principal were not examined, the municipal birth certificate said to exist was never produced, and no ossification test was done. The benefit of that gap went to the accused.
Did the accused walk free?
No. The conviction for rape survived, altered from Section 376(2) to Section 376(1) IPC since the aggravated clause depended on the victim being under sixteen. Having served over seven and a half years against a seven-year minimum, he was sentenced to the period already undergone, with the kidnapping and criminal intimidation convictions affirmed.
Does a finding that age was not proved mean the victim was an adult?
No. The court was explicit that this is not a declaration of majority; it is only that the prosecution did not discharge its burden in this case, so the victim was treated as a major for the limited purpose of the trial.