Patna High Court (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J. for the Bench; Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) dismissed a Criminal Appeal (DB) against the judgment dated 20.01.2024 of the Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act (Bhagwanpur (Teyai) PS Case No. 183 of 2021; POCSO Case No. 58 of 2021). (i) Age of the victim not proved: the victim, her mother (PW-5) and grandmother (PW-8) gave differing ages (about 15 years), PW-9 said 12 years, and the victim did not know her age; there was no matriculation or birth certificate and the Investigating Officer had only an Aadhaar card; following P Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 INSC 626 (age under POCSO to be determined per the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy) and Saroj v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co., 2024 INSC 816 (Aadhaar is not proof of date of birth), the Medical Board's radiological/dental opinion of 17-18 years assumed importance, and the claim that the victim was a minor was not established. (ii) The DNA/FSL report (Ext. X, No. 603 of 2023, dated 30.08.2023) excluded the accused as the biological father of the child Ramattulla @ Abdulla, belying the appellant's constant allegation of paternity; the Medical Board found no evidence of recent sexual assault though the victim had a 26-week pregnancy. (iii) There were material inconsistencies on the place of occurrence; PW-8 and PW-9 stated the victim was before their eyes daily, raising serious doubts; Ext. D-1 showed a land dispute between the accused's father and the victim's father's employer, and the resulting animosity raised considerable doubts over the commission of the offence. (iv) Applying H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581, Chandrappa (2007) 4 SCC 415, Murugesan (2012) 10 SCC 383, Harbans Singh 1961 SCC OnLine SC 40 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, the trial Court's view was a possible view; no error in appreciation of evidence; presumption of innocence affirmed; appeal dismissed and acquittal upheld. The trial Court's reliance on Premjee Bhai Bachho Bhai Khashiya, 2009 Cr. J. 2888 (Gujarat) (negative DNA report conclusively exonerates) was held correct.