In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court addressed the critical issue of determining a victim's age in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The court noted that age determination, a key element in many such cases, is often contested by the accused, which can lead to the misuse of the Act's provisions.

Justice Ajay Bhanot's bench directed the Principal Secretary of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, along with the Director General of Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh, to ensure that medical specialists responsible for age assessment in POCSO cases receive adequate training.

The court emphasized that medical reports should provide reasoned conclusions in accordance with Section 27 of the POCSO Act and Sections 164A(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The court highlighted the necessity for these reports to detail the scientific criteria and medical protocols used in forming an opinion on the victim's age. It noted a troubling trend where numerous medical reports merely stated the victim's age without any substantiation.

The court stated, "Medical reports that fail to justify their conclusions regarding the victim's age are flawed and violate Section 27 of the POCSO Act in conjunction with Sections 164A(2) and (3) of the CrPC."

The bench recalled prior directives issued in the case of Aman @ Vansh vs. State of UP (2024) to the police, reinforcing the need for strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Furthermore, the court asserted that competent medical authorities in the state must adhere to the mandates outlined in Section 27 of the POCSO Act and Sections 164A(2) and (3) of the CrPC by producing reasoned medical reports for age determinations.

The court also emphasized that the statutory framework for determining a victim's age in POCSO cases is multifaceted, involving the interplay between Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), and Section 27 of the POCSO Act alongside Sections 164A(2) and (3) of the CrPC. Although the procedures set forth in Section 94 of the JJ Act do not apply to bail applications under the POCSO Act, the documents cited in this section are vital for consideration, as established in the case of Monish vs. State of UP (2024).

The court remarked that the criteria and documents referenced in these provisions must be taken into account when deciding bail applications under the POCSO Act.

This order arose from a bail application submitted by Dharmendra, accused of offenses under Sections 376, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The defense contended that the victim's age had been inaccurately reported as 15 years to implicate Dharmendra under the POCSO Act. Upon reviewing various prosecution documents, including school records indicating the victim's age as 15 and a medical report claiming she was 13, the court noted that the medical report lacked scientific validation and was prepared without adherence to proper medical protocols.

The court reiterated that in POCSO cases, Section 27 of the POCSO Act and Section 164A of the CrPC necessitate that medical reports be based on scientific standards and provide thorough reasoning, particularly regarding the victim's age. In this case, the medical report failed to meet these requirements and did not explain how the age was determined.

Additionally, the court criticized the recurring neglect of statutory obligations by law enforcement and medical authorities, highlighting the issue of mechanically generated medical reports that do not follow appropriate procedures.

Ultimately, the court granted bail to the accused while emphasizing that the victim's age will be definitively established only during the trial