The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Singh delivered the judgment in the matter of Munna Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, clarifying the evidentiary thresholds required for a conviction under the POCSO Act. The Bench observed that a mere positive DNA report, without corroborative proof of the victim’s age, does not satisfy the standard of proof mandated by the statute.
The Court noted that the prosecution had relied heavily on the DNA report linking the accused to the biological sample recovered from the scene. However, the Bench emphasized that the POCSO Act expressly requires the establishment of the victim’s age as a prerequisite for attracting the special provisions of the law. In the absence of any reliable proof—such as a birth certificate, school records, or medical opinion—regarding the prosecutrix’s age, the conviction could not be sustained.
Justice Agarwal, speaking for the Bench, pointed out that the father of the prosecutrix had stated that his marriage was performed, a statement that the Court considered insufficient to ascertain the age of the minor. The Bench held that such a declaration, standing alone, could not substitute for documentary or medical evidence prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
The judgment further elaborated that the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act is to protect children below the age of eighteen years, and therefore the age of the victim is a material fact that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench cautioned against allowing forensic evidence, however reliable, to overshadow the statutory requirement of age proof, warning that doing so would undermine the protective purpose of the legislation.
In analysing the precedents, the Division Bench referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts that have insisted on strict proof of age in POCSO cases. It reiterated that while DNA evidence can be a valuable tool in establishing contact or presence, it cannot, by itself, establish the essential ingredient of the offence—namely, that the victim is a child as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.
The Bench consequently set aside the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court, directing that the matter be remitted for a fresh consideration of the evidence in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. The State was given an opportunity to lead additional evidence on the age of the prosecutrix, should it be available, before any further proceedings are undertaken.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards embedded in special legislation. It serves as a reminder to investigating agencies and prosecutors that forensic findings must be complemented by substantive proof of age to secure a conviction under the POCSO Act. The ruling is expected to influence future trials where reliance on scientific evidence alone is contemplated, reinforcing the necessity of a holistic evidentiary approach.