Supreme Court reviews POCSO conviction after age dispute

The case concerns a criminal appeal by Pynchemalangaki Bareh against his conviction for rape and criminal intimidation, specifically challenging whether the conviction under the POCSO Act is sustainable given the prosecution's reliance on a Baptismal Certificate to prove the victim's age as a minor.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Pynchemalangaki Bareh; Respondent: State of Meghalaya; Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

What the court decided

• The Court is reviewing the High Court's judgment dated 08.07.2024 which upheld the Trial Court's conviction.
• The appellant was convicted under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act (punishable under Section 4).
• The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of twenty years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the POCSO offence, and rigorous imprisonment of two years for the IPC offence.
• The core legal issue before the Court is whether the age of the victim (13 years) was sufficiently proved to sustain the POCSO conviction, particularly in light of the appellant's argument that the Baptismal Certificate is inadmissible and mandatory requirements under the Juvenile Justice Act were not met.

Also in the document

• The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the final decision, operative order, or any specific directions issued by the Court in this instance.
• The case arises from a Special (POCSO) Case No. 9/2020 tried by the Special Judge (POCSO) in Meghalaya.
• The conviction was based on the testimony of 14 witnesses and 11 material exhibits, including a Baptismal Certificate and a Medico-Legal Certificate.