School Transfer Certificate Cannot Be Relied Upon To Determine POCSO Victim Age : Supreme Court Acquits Accused

The Supreme Court observed that school transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register cannot be relied on to determine age of the victim in POCSO cases.

While acquitting an accused, the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar noted that wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

"Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court", the bench noted.

The court was considering an appeal filed by a man concurrently convicted under POCSO Act. It noted that the Trial Court had relied on a school transfer certificate. Further, the doctor had deposed  “that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years”. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that “when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor”.

Disagreeing with this view, the bench said:

"This finding is, in this court’s considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2) (ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim’s bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or 14 bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-9"

The court further observed that in this case the prosecution was not able to establish that there was any penetrative sexual assault as a result of coercion or compulsion on the part of the accused. The court noticed that in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC, the victim M had deposed that she was in love with the appellant, had consumed poison, and had even been hospitalized because she was adamant to live with the appellant.

"The court is of the opinion that M’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC contained a truthful narration of the events. This, in other words, meant that there was no penetrative sexual assault on her. Therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act will not be applicable in this case.", the bench said.

Therefore, the accused's appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

Case details

P Yuvaprakash vs State | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 | 2023 INSC 626

Headnotes

POCSO Act, 2012 ; Section 94 - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 ; Section 94 - Wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act - School transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandate - Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court - 

Appellant concurrently convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act -  Conviction set aside.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment