POCSO Act | Scholar Register Sufficient To Determine Victim's Age, Prosecution Testimonies Can't Be Disregarded For Trivial Contradictions: MP High Court
Recently, Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored that a school admission register/ scholar register is a valid document that can be relied upon for determining the age of a survivor concerning a POCSO offence. On another note, the court also iterated that testimonies of prosecutrix and other witnesses can't be deemed unreliable unless there is any material contradiction that goes to the...
Recently, Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored that a school admission register/ scholar register is a valid document that can be relied upon for determining the age of a survivor concerning a POCSO offence. On another note, the court also iterated that testimonies of prosecutrix and other witnesses can't be deemed unreliable unless there is any material contradiction that goes to the root of the case.
The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh, while rendering the judgement, referred to the landmark judgment in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263 and Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench decision in Ramswaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) for discerning the criteria for age determination.
“…the scholar register or admission register would be taken into account for deciding the age of prosecutrix. Since, in the scholar register (exhibit-P/7C), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 18.04.2006, meaning thereby, she was only 14 years and 6 months on the date of incident…”, the bench sitting at Indore included the prosecutrix in the category of a child under the age of 18 years while disapproving the contentions raised by the accused/appellant regarding her date of birth.
The appellant contended that the age of the prosecutrix cannot be conclusively determined in the absence of a mark sheet or any other certificates.
In Jarnail Singh, the court referred to Rule 12(3) of Juvenile Justice(Care & Protection of Children) Rules,2007 to hold that it would squarely apply to determine the age of a victim as well as an accused person under the POCSO Act. According to this Rule, first preference for age determination is by relying upon the matriculation or equivalent certificates. In their absence, one could rely upon the date of birth certificate from the school first attended. If none of these are available, the birth certificate given by a corporation, municipality or Panchayath will be instrumental. In the absence of all three of the above, medical opinion for age assessment will be sought by constituting a medical board.
In Ramswaroop, Madhya Pradesh High Court has already held that the school register is an admissible and relevant document for age determination as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. To bolster the finding, the high court had then also relied on the apex court's decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of MP, 2012 AIR SCW 5377 where it was stated that the admission register of a school which the prosecutrix first attended is sufficient for age determination.
In the current case, on the reliability of prosecution evidence, the court believed that the statements of the prosecutrix and her father remained unblemished even in cross-examination. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix has also attested to the scratches found on the forearms and both sides of the chest due to molestation, the court further noted. After referring to Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 37 and Ravasaheb @ Ravasaheb Gauda etc. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw SC 225, the court held as below:
“…the testimonies of prosecutrix as well as other witnesses cannot be wiped out on the basis of trivial contradictions. Virtually, the testimony of prosecutrix should be regarded as an injured witness of the case and it is well settled that criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the evidence of a person injured in the incidence. Such a testimony comes with a in-built guarantee of truth, specially when it is a case of molestation or sexual assault…”, Justice Prem Narayan Singh held while also opining that an injured witness wouldn't let go of the actual culprit to trap an innocent person in criminal proceedings.
Additionally, the court also observed that the accused had a culpable mental state as mentioned in Section 30(1) of the POCSO Act while committing the sexual offence on the child. Though the accused tried to put forth the existence of prior animosity as the motive behind lodging the complaint, the court found it to be unconvincing.
As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 354 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. For offences under sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, the minimum duration of the sentence is 3 years. However, the trial court only imposed a sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, there can be no further reduction in the sentence already awarded in any way, the court further held.
Advocate Nilesh Manore appeared for the appellant/accused and Advocate Rajesh Joshi represented the state.
Case Title: Farid Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 17
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 8359 of 2023