Supreme Court Modifies POCSO Conviction to Section 376 IPC After Prosecution Fails to Prove Victim's Age

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Pynchemalangkai Bareh v. State of Meghalaya

• Citation: 2026 INSC 984

• Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria

• Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026

• Area of Law: Criminal Law, POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, Age Determination, Section 376 IPC

The Judgment in One Line

Supreme Court modifies POCSO conviction to Section 376 IPC, holding prosecution failed to prove victim's age under Section 94 JJ Act.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is a significant clarification on the mandatory procedure for determining the age of a POCSO victim. It establishes that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 must be strictly followed and that a Baptismal Certificate is not one of the prescribed documents. The ruling also clarifies that even where POCSO conviction fails due to unproven minority, the accused can be convicted under Section 376 IPC if the factum of rape is proved, applying Sections 222 and 464 CrPC. The judgment balances procedural rigour with substantive justice, ensuring that a proven rapist does not escape punishment on technical grounds.

Background

The appellant was convicted under Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 4 and Section 506 IPC for raping a 13-year-old girl. The prosecution relied on a Baptismal Certificate dated September 18, 2016, showing the victim's date of birth as March 5, 2006, to prove her minority. The victim's mother also deposed to her age. The Trial Court and High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant challenged t

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.