POCSO Victim’s Age Must Be Conclusively Proved Through School Record Or Medical Evidence U/S. 94 Of Juvenile Justice Act: Patna High Court
The appeal before the Patna High Court was directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge arising out of a case registered under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, Patna High Court
While upholding an acquittal passed in a case pertaining to the POCSO Act, the Patna High Court has held that Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act lays down the procedure for determining juvenility and the age of victim must be conclusively proved through school record or through medical evidence.
The appeal before the Patna High Court was directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge arising out of a case registered under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act whereby and whereunder the second Respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court from the charges under Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey held, “In the light of the aforesaid discussion made above, the age of victim must conclusively proved through school record or through medical evidence but in the present case the medical evidence regarding age or any documentary proof has not been proved and the learned trial court has recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the said ground.”
Advocate Abhinav Alok represented the Petitioner, while APP Ramchandra Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, the informant/victim was said to have proceeded to purchase tooth toothbrush from a nearby shop, and her neighbor (second respondent) approached the informant and took the informant to his house where the second respondent showed her obscene video. When the same was protested by the informant, the second respondent tried to restrain the informant but somehow she manged to left the house of the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent threatened the victim that if she told anyone about the incident, he would kill the informant’s father who is deaf and dumb person. Thereafter, the informant came to her house and told her family member about the incident.
On the basis of information furnished by the informant, a case was instituted for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The police, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the second respondent under Section 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Accordingly, cognisance was taken under the aforesaid sections. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the second respondent.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Act of 2007 has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 94 of the Act of 2015 lays down the procedure for determining juvenility.
The Bench noted that it was claimed by the Prosecution that the victim was a minor, and the Trial Court had recorded the finding that the birth certificate was not proved. The investigating officer had also received the photocopy and verified it online and did not annex any verification report. “In the light of the aforesaid discussion made above, the age of victim must conclusively proved through school record or through medical evidence but in the present case the medical evidence regarding age or any documentary proof has not been proved and the learned trial court has recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the said ground”, it added.
The Bench explained, “In criminal appeal against acquittal what the Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the learned trial court is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal presumption about the innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the finding of the Court.”
No recovery of mobile phone, alleged video, chocolates or toothbrush was made. The investigating officer had specifically admitted that these critical items were not seized, nor was any attempt made to trace them. These contradictions substantially impaired the credibility of the testimonies.
The Bench further stated, “Unless and until, the prima facie case is made out, the burden never shifts to other side. Initially, the prosecution has failed to prove its case as the mandatory requirement of age has not been determined under the statutory provisions and the evidence adduced by the victim herself is contradictory with the earlier statement. In this way, the burden never shifts to the other side. The finding of the learned trial court while recording the judgment of acquittal is no way derogation of settled principle of law.”
The Bench observed that the trial Court had taken a plausible view based on the evidence available on the record. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. “The view taken by the trial Court cannot be held to be bad or perverse. Under such circumstances, no case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out.”, it held. The Bench thus dismissed the criminal appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal at the admission stage itself.
Cause Title: XXXXXXXXX v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.3416 of 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Abhinav Alok, Priyajeet Pandey, Megha
Respondent: APP Ramchandra Singh