Recently, the single bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai of the Bombay High Court acquitted a man who was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), stating that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was a minor at the time of the incident. 

The bench held that the non-eruption of wisdom teeth alone is not enough evidence to prove a person’s age, thereby rejecting the significance attributed to this factor.

In the said matter, the complainant alleged that the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with her by deceitfully promising marriage when she was a 10th-grade student.

According to the complaint, after informing the accused about her pregnancy on March 25, 2016, he became unresponsive and left Mumbai. Subsequently, the complainant gave birth to a child, confirmed through a DNA report to be the biological child of the accused. 

In his defence, the accused claimed that they were in a consensual relationship, and he had travelled to his hometown in Uttar Pradesh to inform his mother about their intended marriage. Upon learning of the pregnancy, he assured the complainant that he would marry her upon his return but was unable to locate her afterwards. He expressed his willingness to marry her and take responsibility for the child.

Back in 2019, the trial court convicted the accused under sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, along with sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Later, the accused filed an appeal challenging the Court orders.  

Citing Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, which establishes that all permanent teeth, excluding wisdom teeth, erupt by the age of puberty (around 17 to 25 years), the court reasoned that the “eruption of wisdom teeth could only indicate that a person is above 17 years old”. 

However, the court emphasized that the absence of wisdom teeth does not definitively establish that the person is below 18 years old.

The prosecution also presented a School Leaving Certificate stating the complainant’s date of birth as December 19, 2000, as well as an Ossification test report to support their claim of her being a minor during the incident. 

“the person responsible for recording the complainant’s date of birth in the School Register was not examined by the prosecution.”

Additionally, the complainant’s elder siblings did not disclose her date of birth. 

Consequently, the court concluded that “the absence of supporting evidence regarding the recording of her date of birth rendered the age entry in these documents devoid of probative value.”

Regarding the Ossification test report, the court observed that it was not admitted under section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Furthermore, the prosecution introduced the report through a Medical Superintendent who did not personally prepare it. 

“Since the orthopaedic surgeon who examined the victim, the medical officer who wrote the report, or any other orthopaedic surgeon or radiologist explaining the basis of the opinion were not examined by the prosecution”, the court concluded that the Ossification test report held no evidentiary value.

The Bombay High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim in the case was below 18 years of age