Determination Of Victim’s Age Is Matter Of Trial, Not At Bail Stage: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Directions Mandating Age Determination Test In POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court has held that the determination of age of the victim is a matter of trial and not at the stage of bail.

The Court set aside the directions of the Allahabad High Court, by which it had mandated age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

A Criminal Appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging the High Court’s Judgment by which the Single Judge granted bail to the accused and issued a number of directions.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “Apropos the above discussion, it is clearly held that determination of age of the victim is a matter of trial and not at the stage of bail. If the age is under question, the bail Court may examine the documents produced to establish age, but it will not enter into the question of those documents being correct or not so. The mandate of Section 94 JJ Act is clear. The documents provided therein are to be utilized for determination of the age of the victim, and only in the absence thereof, will medical evidence be resorted to.”

The Bench said that a Court’s jurisdiction, i.e., either the Court of Sessions or the High Court under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is limited to adjudicating the question of the person concerned being released into society pending trial or whether they should continue to be incarcerated.

AOR Ruchira Goel represented the Appellant, while Advocate D.S. Parmar represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Respondent was accused of having committed offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. An FIR was lodged at the instance of the victim’s mother alleging that her 12-year-old daughter was abducted from her home. The Trial Court rejected bail and in the proceedings for bail before the High Court, the Chief Medical Officer was directed to constitute a medical board for determination of the age of the victim.

In May 2024, the Court then released the accused on interim bail, observing that there was wide inconsistency in the age of the victim as in the school records, or as stated by her in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC regarding age/intimacy with the accused among other factors. In terms of the impugned judgment, the Court confirmed the said Order. The High Court accepted the medically determined age of the victim as above 18 years and consequently, allowed bail subject to conditions. It also issued a slew of directions mandating medical determination of victim’s age in all POCSO cases. This was under challenge before the Apex Court.

Question for Determination

The question that arose for consideration was whether under Section 439 of CrPC the High Court could have issued directions, mandating age determination test to be conducted in all cases involving the POCSO Act. This larger question involved twin considerations, one on the aspect of jurisdiction and the other on the aspect of law i.e., the postulate of the act regarding determination of age, and how the directions issued in the impugned Judgment correspond to or are in contravention of the same.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, remarked, “It is unquestionable that High Court is a constitutional Court. However, in the instant case the error of jurisdiction by the High Court was in exercise of a statutory power and not under the Constitution. The powers arising from the Constitution and those flowing from a statute are distinct and separate. A constitutional power is the one which emanates directly from the text and spirit of the Constitution of India, the supreme and fundamental charter of governance, and inheres in those institutions or functionaries whose existence and competence are defined by it.”

The Court added that such powers are self-sustaining; they are not contingent upon any act of the Legislature, nor can they be abridged or extinguished except through a formal amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution.

“These powers represent the apex of the legal hierarchy, deriving their legitimacy not from the will of the people as expressed by Parliament, but from the sovereignty of the Constitution itself. … In contrast, a statutory power is derivative and conditional, drawing its vitality from a law duly enacted by the Parliament or a State Legislature. Such power exists only within the four corners of the enabling statute and is circumscribed by its language, purpose, and legislative intent”, it noted.

The Court emphasised that the exercise of these powers must conform strictly to the parameters laid down by the statute; any transgression beyond its express or implied authority is rendered ultra vires and, therefore, void in the eyes of law.

“The essential distinction between these two species of power lies not merely in their origin but also in their constitutional status and susceptibility to control. Constitutional powers are sovereign, foundational, and insulated from the vicissitudes of ordinary legislation; they can neither be curtailed nor expanded by parliamentary enactment. Statutory powers, by contrast, are subordinate and mutable, existing at the pleasure of the Legislature, which may at any time amend, restrict, or repeal them through the ordinary legislative process”, it explained.

The Court was of the view that the Constitutional power cannot overshadow the statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been envisaged by the statute and, while both powers rest with the High Court, one power cannot usurp the ambit of another, unless otherwise permitted by law.

“On the aspect of jurisdiction, consequent to the discussion above, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court had erred in undertaking such an exercise of issuing directions and getting the age of the victim examined in an application seeking grant of bail”, it held.

Medical determination of victim’s age

The Court observed that a medical determination of age of a victim cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, much less mandated and it can only be employed in a given circumstance when the other stipulations of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) are not/cannot be met and this direction, therefore, has to be set aside.

“In fine, our conclusions are that the High Court in bail jurisdiction was coram non judice for issuing directions mandating the investigating authorities within the State of Uttar Pradesh to necessarily have a medical examination of the victim conducted, with the particular intent to determine the age of the victim as also holding, that a bail Court would be empowered to entertain challenges to the documents produced to establish the age of the victim”, it said.

The Court further noted that the importance of medical examination in the harrowing crimes of sexual assault cannot be overstated, it is not merely a record of injury or a catalogue of biological traces; it is the voice of the body, speaking when words falter and memory trembles.

“In cases where the victim’s courage may be tested by stigma, shame, or the weight of societal scrutiny, medical evidence provides an impartial testament, grounding the pursuit of justice in the certainty of observable fact. It is, in essence, the bridge that links the personal suffering of the victim with the impartial adjudication of the law. But at the same time, its purpose, which is to gather essential evidence in a scientifically sound manner, with due regard to the principles of human dignity on one hand and evidence on the other, cannot be reduced to a common, matter of course step - especially when a procedure with a legislative imprimatur has been laid down”, it also remarked.

The Court was of the view that the High Court could not have passed directions that go against clearly stated legislative intent under Section 94 of the JJ Act and the determination of the age of the victim is a matter for trial, and the presumption which is accorded to the documents enumerated under the Section, has to be rebutted there, for that is the appropriate forum to do so, not the bail Court.

“If the question of age is raised at the stage of bail, it is only open for the Court to, from the perusal of the documents, take a prima facie view as to the age of the victim, not one on the correctness of the documents since that would amount to a mini trial. It could also not have fused statutory jurisdiction with a constitutional one, lifting one to the other, or downgrading the higher to the lower in order to grant itself the wherewithal, in an otherwise fairly circumscribed jurisdiction, to do what could not be done”, it added.

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court said that the High Court’s Judgment and Order has to be set aside on grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby lacking the appropriate directions.

“The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm regarding this situation”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the directions issued in the impugned Judgment, and directed the Registry to dispatch forthwith a copy of its Judgment to the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, for necessary follow-up action, as also information to the Trial Courts.

Cause Title- The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Ruchira Goel, Advocates Sharanya, Veera Mahuli, and Ritika Rao.

Respondents: Advocates D.S. Parmar, Saurabh Singh, Vedant Tiwari, Shambhavi Shrivastava, and Archana.

Click here to read/download the Judgment