IMPORTANT POINTS
When documentary evidence as to age are available on record, medical examination of the accused for age determination would be unwarranted.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave challenges the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.383 of 2015. In order to avoid any identification of the victim, we have transposed the original respondent No.1 namely, the Complainant as respondent No.2 and the State is now shown as respondent No.1 in the matter.

3. Pursuant to complaint by the complainant, FIR vide Crime No.5/2010 was initially registered under Sections 417 and 506(ii) IPC on 26.03.2010 with Old Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai against the appellant, his father, mother and uncle. After carrying out necessary investigation, charge-sheet dated 18.11.2010 was filed against the appellant under Section 376 IPC and against his parents and uncle under Sections 417 read with 109 IPC and 506(ii) IPC. It was alleged that the appellant had become friendly with the victim while they had reached 10+2 standard; that this fact was known to the family of the appellant who treated the victim as their daughter-in-law; that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim on 5 to 6 occasions; and that the behavior of the family of appellant later changed and they refused to perform the marriage. It was alleged that the appellant thus committed offence under Section 376 IPC while his family members were guilty of offence under Sections 417 read with 109 IPC and 506(ii) IPC.

4. Appropriate charges under the aforesaid Sections having been framed, Criminal O.P. No. 9823 of 2011 was filed in the High Court seeking quashing of those charges. The High Court by its Order dated 20.06.2012 quashed the charges as against the parents and uncle of the appellant but dismissed the challenge raised by the appellant. Consequently the trial proceeded only against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. On 18.09.2012, the victim deposed before the trial court as PW-1. In her examination-in-Chief she deposed:

“………….......I firmly believed that the accused and his family will not leave me and our marriage would definitely solemnize. After this the accused forced me and had intercourse with me 5 to 6 times.”

The victim however in her examination in chief did not give any probable period or time when the intercourse had last taken place. In her cross-examination conducted on 06.10.2012, to a pointed query she answered, “We had intercourse finally in August, 2009”.

5. At that juncture, the cross-examination of the victim was stopped and a plea of juvenility of the appellant was raised. It was submitted that going by the assertions of the victim, the appellant was definitely a juvenile on the alleged dates of occurrence. Criminal M.P. No. 10872 of 2012 under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) was also filed praying that the age of the appellant be determined in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The complainant was also allowed to make her submissions. After hearing the parties, the Court posted the application for pronouncement of Orders on 04.12.2012. However, on 28.11.2012 an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution for adding charge under Section 417 against the appellant. The request for addition of the charge was dismissed by the trial court which order was affirmed by the High Court by its Order dated 15.02.2013. The complainant challenged the order of the High Court by filing SLP(Crl.) No. 1899 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court on 12.08.2014.

6. The trial court thereafter postponed the issue of juvenility to be considered at the stage of final determination of the matter, which order was challenged by the appellant by filing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The challenge was accepted by the High Court and by Order dated 8.12.2014 it directed:

“The learned III Additional Sessions Judge shall first decide the claim