The Supreme Court of India observed that school transfer certificates and extracts from admission registers should not be relied upon to determine the age of victims in cases falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, made this observation while acquitting an accused in a POCSO case.
The court emphasized that in situations where the age of a person is in dispute, particularly in the context of them being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts should follow the guidelines outlined in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. According to Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act, the date of birth certificate from the school or a matriculation certificate issued by the examination board should be given preference. In the absence of these documents, the birth certificate issued by the Corporation, Municipal Authority, or Panchayat should be considered. Only when such documents are unavailable, the age can be determined through an "ossification test" or "any other latest medical age determination test" conducted under the orders of the relevant authority, such as a Committee, Board, or Court.
The case in question involved an appeal filed by a man who had been convicted under the POCSO Act. The Trial Court had relied on a school transfer certificate as evidence, and a doctor had stated that the girl's age was between 18 and 20 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, stating that when the precise date of birth is available from school records, the approximate age estimated by a medical expert cannot be the determining factor.
Disagreeing with the High Court's view, the Supreme Court bench remarked that the transfer certificate and admission register extracts presented in the case did not meet the requirements of Section 94 of the JJ Act. The only piece of evidence that complied with the Act was the result of the ossification test conducted on the victim, which involved several X-rays and expert opinions. The examining doctor stated that the victim's age was between 18 and 20 years, which was corroborated in cross-examination where she mentioned the age might be 19 years. The Supreme Court deemed the ossification test as the most authentic evidence.
Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish any penetrative sexual assault resulting from coercion or compulsion by the accused. The victim's statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) indicated that she was in love with the appellant, had consumed poison, and had been hospitalized due to her determination to live with him. Based on this statement, the court concluded that there was no penetrative sexual assault, rendering the provisions of the POCSO Act inapplicable to this case. As a result, the accused's appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
Case Details: P Yuvaprakash vs State
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy