P. Yuvaprakash vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police
Background
The appellant and a girl he knew (referred to in the judgment as "M," her name redacted) were in a relationship that her family objected to. In January 2015, she left home with the appellant, and the two were married at a temple; her family alleged she had been kidnapped and coerced. A criminal case followed, and the appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and sentenced to life imprisonment, later reduced by the Madras High Court to 10 years, along with a conviction under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; he was acquitted of the kidnapping charge under Section 366 IPC. The central dispute before the Supreme Court was whether M was actually a minor (under 18) at the time, since the POCSO Act only applies to a "child," and whether there was any evidence of penetrative sexual assault as opposed to a consensual relationship.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the courts below had misapplied the statutory hierarchy for age determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act: a school transfer certificate (not a proper birth or matriculation certificate) had been wrongly relied on over the ossification (bone) test, even though the relevant birth records were confirmed missing and the transfer certificate wasn't the class of document the law requires as primary proof. The medical ossification test, by contrast, indicated M's age was between 18 and 20. The Court also found no reliable evidence of penetrative sexual assault: the medical examination found no injury consistent with recent assault, and M's statement to the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC (found truthful and voluntary, and never actually rebutted by the prosecution, which did not even cross-examine the Magistrate who recorded it) showed she had gone with the appellant and married him willingly out of a long-standing relationship, not under coercion. On this basis, the Court held the POCSO Act did not apply and there was no proof of assault, and acquitted the appellant of all remaining charges, setting aside the High Court's conviction and sentence entirely.
Lesson Learnt
In cases turning on a victim's age, courts must follow the fixed statutory order of proof under the Juvenile Justice Act (school/matriculation birth records first, then municipal birth records, and only then a medical ossification test) rather than favouring a lesser document like a transfer certificate over reliable medical evidence; and a victim's own voluntary, unchallenged statement to a Magistrate carries significant weight even if she later resiles from it at trial.