Introduction:

In the case of Karan Kumar v. State & Anr. (CRL.A. 1067/2024), The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Sharma, delivered a significant judgment on June 3, 2025. The appellant, Karan Kumar, had been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly engaging in sexual relations with a minor. The central issue in this appeal was the determination of the survivor’s age at the time of the incident.

Arguments Presented:

Prosecution’s Standpoint:

The prosecution relied heavily on the school admission register, which listed the survivor’s date of birth as provided by her parents. They argued that this document was sufficient to establish that the survivor was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. Based on this, they contended that the appellant had committed offences under the POCSO Act and IPC.

Defence’s Counterarguments:

The defence challenged the reliability of the school register, emphasising that it was based solely on the parents’ declaration without any corroborating official birth certificate. They highlighted that the survivor herself stated she was born during the Holi festival in March 1998, making her an adult at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the survivor testified that the relationship was consensual and initiated by her, with the appellant initially hesitant.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Amit Sharma noted that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the survivor’s age beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasised that in cases where the age of the victim is disputed, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to conduct an ossification test or any other reliable medical age determination test, as outlined under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act. In this case, no such tests were conducted, and the only document presented was the school admission register, which lacked corroborative evidence.

The court also took into account the survivor’s testimony, where she asserted that the relationship was consensual and that she was an adult at the time. Given these factors, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the survivor was a minor and that the relationship was non-consensual.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, acquitting Karan Kumar of all charges.