[JJ Rules] School Certificate Prevails Over Doctor's Opinion About Minor Rape Victim's Age: Karnataka High Court

To determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. A division bench of Justices Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti observed that it is only in the absence of the matriculation or equivalent certificates or the date of birth certificate from the School or a birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal authority or a panchayat, that the medical opinion would be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or the child.

"As per Rule 12 (3)(ii) of the J.J. Rules, the date of birth confirmation certificate from the School stands on a higher priority than the medical opinion of a Doctor," it said.

The bench made the observations while allowing State's appeal and convicting accused Sharanu @ Sharanappa for rape of a 15-year-old girl back in 2011. It set aside the acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced the accused to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 376 of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, a married man and a resident of the same village as the victim, raped her on several occasions and threatened her against revealing his actions. The incident came to light after the victim got pregnant. Consequently, the parents of the victim lodged a FIR in April 2012 under Sections 448, 376 and 506 of the IPC.

The trial court acquitted the accused of all charges, following which the State preferred the instant appeal.

The Respondent claimed that the sexual act was done with the consent of the victim. However, the prosecution submitted that as on the date of the alleged offence, the victim girl was minor and as such, her alleged consent, if any, would not be a valid consent in the eye of law.

Refuting prosecution's case, the Respondent submitted that the Doctor who examined the victim girl confirmed that the victim has stated her age to be 19 years.

Findings:

At the outset, the bench expressed its satisfaction at the testimonies of the victim girl, her parents and her aunt, who stated that the accused had "forcibly" committed sexual intercourse with the victim. "They having withstood cross-examination becomes trustworthy and more reliable. More importantly, the evidence of noneless than the victim girl (PW-3) that she was subjected to a forcible sexual intercourse by the accused, as such, she was subjected to rape, cannot be disbelieved," Court said.

As regards the contention of the accused that the victim was major at the time of the incident, the bench said,

"The victim girl, admittedly, had studied upon to VIII standard in a School. Though she has not given her date of birth in her evidence, but even on the date of recording of her evidence in the Sessions Judge's Court, she has shown herself as minor in her age. She categorically denied a suggestion that she was major in her age, as on the date of the alleged incident, so also on the date of her evidence."

It added, "If an admission in her cross-examination to the effect that, the entries made in the medical record at Goura Hospital, regarding her name and age are true is to be accepted as the sole basis to determine her age, then, her very another statement made at more than one place in her very same evidence as PW-3 that, she was a minor as on the date of the incident also cannot be ignored and the same also to be weighed at par with other statements in her evidence."

Rejecting the evidence of doctor who issued the medical certificate before registration of FIR the court said "Admittedly, the victim girl was unmarried as on the date of medical termination of her pregnancy and which victim girl was taken to PW-11 - Doctor by the maternal aunt of the girl, who somehow wanted that the pregnancy of the girl has to be medically terminated. Therefore, there is all the possibility of her stating that the girl was major in her age, in order to avoid any further complications."

Further it said, "The mere statement of PW-11 - Doctor, which, in turn, based upon the oral information said to have been given to her by the victim girl and her maternal aunt, cannot be the sole basis to determine the age of the victim girl."

The bench discarded the evidence of the district government hospital doctor who examined the victim after registration of FIR. It said, "The opinion of the Government Doctor (PW-10) is based upon the report of the Radiologist, who, in turn, appears to have based his opinion on an X-ray report. Admittedly, no Ossification Test has been conducted in the matter. Further, it also cannot be ignored that the medical opinion based upon the Radiologist's opinion does not specifically say that the victim girl was major in her age, i.e. above 18 years of age as on the date of her examination."

Referring to the evidence of the headmaster of the school in which the victim studied the bench said, "There is nothing to suspect or disbelieve that the date of birth of the victim girl was not correctly shown in the said certificate at Ex.P-6, which in turn, was an extract of the records maintained by the School authorities."

Rejecting the contention that the act was consensual the court said, "Since it is established that the victim girl (PW-3) was minor in her age, at the time of the alleged incident, her consent would be invalid in the eye of law, as such, the question of the accused having consensual sex with her after obtaining her consent would not arise. Thus, the act of the accused in the present case in having sexual intercourse with the victim girl is necessarily to be held as an act of rape punishable under Section 376 of the IPC."

Following which it allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and convicted the accused for the offences charged with.

Case Title: The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa.

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200058/2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

Date of Order: 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

Appearance: Prakash Yeli, Additional State Public Prosecutor for appellant.

Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Senior Counsel for Suresh C. Tengli, Advocate for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment