The Delhi High Court has uphled the trial court's decision to discharge an accused of POCSO Act charges relying on Aadhaar Card to ascertain age of the victim.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain dismissed the appeal filed against the order observing that the age of the prosecutrix as appeared in the school record was not based on any birth certificate.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant had stated that her daughter stated to be aged about 16 years was found to be missing on 09.09.2015 and appeared to have left the house without informing any other person. The complainant suspected the respondent as the person who has taken her daughter away. Accordingly, an FIR was filed and after conclusion of investigation, the accused was charged for offences under sections 363/366/366A/376 IPC & under section 4/6 POCSO Act, 2012.
During investigation it was revealed that she got married with the respondent on 12.09.2015 and had also refused to undergo medical examination. Her statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she had left with the respondent out of her own free will and after getting married with the respondent, she established relation with the respondent. Further, she stated her year of the birth as 1994 and was aged about 21 years.
The Trial Court had discharged the respondent for the offences. Therefore, the present appeal.
Contention of the Parties
The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State argued that the Trial Court has erred in relying upon the Aadhaar Card and without resorting to the section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Citing Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 Latest Caselaw 422 SC , he contended that as per the documents collected during the investigation from the concerned school, the prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of the offence.
On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent argued that the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the Aadhaar Card and as per the Aadhaar Card, the date of birth of the prosecutrix happen to be 01.01.1994. Citing P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 2023 Latest Caselaw 571 SC, he further argued that the age of the prosecutrix as appeared in the school record was not based on any birth certificate issued by the MCD or any other statutory authority.
High Court's Observation
The Court at the outset stated 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 JJ Act. It thus mentioned the three documents in order of which the Juvenile Justice Act requires consideration being:
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board.
The Court thus observed that in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not collect any birth certificate from the school of the prosecutrix or birth certificate issued by MCD or any other statutory authority or panchayat and as per its ruling in State NCT of Delhi V Umesh, also referred the Aadhaar card to determine the age of the prosecutrix.
The Court reached at the conclusion that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix as appearing in the school record was not based on birth certificate issued by MCD or any other statutory authority and in the absence of these documents, and had rightly relied upon the Aadhaar card to ascertain the age of prosecutrix as per mandate of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reflects the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 01.01.1994.
Mentioning that the prosecutrix was not subjected to the ossification test to determine her approximate age, the court noted that impugn order does not call for any interference.
Case Title: State (GNCT of Delhi) vs Rohit Kumar
Case Details: Crl.Rev.P. 384/2017 & Crl.M.A. 8663/2017
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Koyal, PS Mangolpuri
Advocates for Respondent: Ms. Sunita Arora and Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocates
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :