Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
P. Yuvaprakash – Appellant
VERSUS
State Rep. By Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1898 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 34 – Determination of age – Wherever dispute with respect to age of a person arises in context of her or him being a victim under POCSO Act, courts have to take recourse to steps indicated in Section 94 of JJ Act – Only in absence of birth certificate, age shall be determined by Ossification Test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on orders of Committee or Board. (Para 13)
(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – Section 10 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Sexual assault on minor girl – Conviction and sentence – Acquittal from offence under Section 366 of IPC – It was incumbent for prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that victim’s age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of JJ Act – Result of Ossification or Bone Test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by examining doctor – It is only when there is penetrative sexual assault which implies sexual contact with or without consent of minor victim, that offences under POCSO Act are committed – All facts proved in this case clearly indicate victim’s willingness to accompany appellant and even celebrate their marriage – However, she did not support statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. – Provisions of POCSO Act will not be applicable in this case – Charges against him, under Section 6 of POCSO Act as well as Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, cannot be sustained – Conviction and sentences set aside. (Paras 19, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Sole appellant is aggrieved by conviction affirmed and sentence imposed by Madras High Court, rejecting his plea. . He is acquitted of committing offence under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code but convicted under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is not guilty of offences he was charged with; he is hereby acquitted. Impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside; the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. The appeal is allowed, but without order on costs.
Result : Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.
The determination of age in cases involving minors, particularly under the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, is governed by a structured process that prioritizes documentary evidence and medical assessments. According to the relevant legal provisions, the courts and authorities must first seek the most reliable documents such as the birth certificate issued by a municipal or government authority or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from an examination board (!) (!) . If these are unavailable, the next step involves considering the age recorded in the school records, such as a transfer certificate or admission register, provided that these records are reliable and based on proper documentation (!) (!) .
In the absence of documentary evidence, the process shifts to medical age determination through ossification tests or other latest medical assessments ordered by the appropriate authority, such as a Committee or Court (!) (!) . The results of these medical tests are considered to be the most authentic evidence of the minor’s age, especially when documentary evidence is lacking or unreliable. The medical opinion should be given significant weight, and the age determined through such tests is deemed to be the true age of the individual for legal purposes (!) (!) .
Regarding the margin of error, the legal framework and judicial practice recognize that medical age assessments, such as ossification tests, may have a margin of error, but they are still regarded as the most reliable indicator when other documents are unavailable or dubious (!) (!) . The assessments are to be conducted within a specified time frame, typically within fifteen days of the order, to ensure accuracy and relevance (!) .
Furthermore, the legal provisions emphasize that the age determined through these procedures shall be final and binding for the purpose of the case, and subsequent proof of the actual age is not necessary to invalidate the determination made by the Court or authority (!) (!) . This structured approach aims to ensure that the age of a minor is established accurately and fairly, balancing documentary evidence and medical assessments, with an understanding of the inherent limitations and potential margins of error in medical testing.
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the conviction affirmed and the sentence imposed by the Madras High Court, rejecting his plea1[By common final order dated 14.12.2016 in Cr. A. No. 400/2016]. He is acquitted of committing offense under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter “IPC”), but convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter “POCSO Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution was that one T. Abdul Hameed complained to the police that his younger daughter (hereafter “M” or “the victim”), aged 17 years (running 18 years), had stomach-ache when he went out on work on 13.01.2015. His elder daughter Vaheedha and his younger sister Ameena had taken M to the hospital. While they were returning home, near Rita School, Shastri Nagar, at about 02.30 hours, one Yuvaprakash and two others reached the spot, kidnapped M, and escaped from there by two-wheeler. This incident was reported to Abdul Hameed by his elder daughter over the phone. He and others searched for M in the nearby areas, but it in vain. Abdul Hameed lodged a complaint2[registered in Crime No. 22 of 2015] under Section 366A of the IPC. It was further alleged that on 14.01.2015, the appellant and A-3, A-4, A-6 to A-9 took M to a temple at Kodumudi town, where the appellant tied a thali around M’s neck to solemnize their marriage. After the marriage, again the appellant and A-3, A4, A6 to A9 took M to the second accused’s house, where they made her to stay with the appellant. It was alleged that while they were there, the appellant had repeated sexual intercourse with M.
3. It was also alleged that on 15.01.2015, the accused took M in an Omni van to Madurai, where the appellant stayed with her in his uncle’s house between 15:01.2015 and 25.01.2015, at Seelanayakanpatti and that during this time too, the appellant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the victim. Meanwhile, the police investigated the complaint, which was registered as a missing person report. On 25.01.2015, the appellant and the other accused became aware that a complaint had been lodged; as a result, they abandoned M and left Madurai. She then returned to her father’s house at Erode, when he took her to the police station and reported what had occurred to the investigating officer (IO), viz. PW-16. PW-16 recorded the victim’s statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter “Cr. PC”). M’s statement was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. PC. In this, she stated that she had known the accused, and both loved each other, for about a year; this was known to her father and grandmother, who objected to their relationship. This led to her consuming rat poison to commit suicide; however, she was hospitalized and treated. She further stated that she eloped with the appellant voluntarily- a fact known to her aunt and PW-4, her sister. She also stated that the appellant and his relatives solemnized her marriage with him, and they lived as a married couple. According to her, when they were living together, the police came in search of her, after which she came to know that her father had filed a police complaint. She further clarified that she was never abducted nor married forcibly and that she married the appellant as per her wishes.
4. After M was traced, the police altered the complaint; the first information report now included Section 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act as well as other offences, such as Section 506 of the IPC, Section 10 of the Child Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006. The appellant and other accused (i.e., his parents and relatives, A-2 to A-9) were alleged to have committed the offences they were accused of in the charge sheet. The appellant and other accused were charged with commission of the offences; they abjured guilt and faced trial. The key witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were PW-3 (the victim, i.e., M); PW-4, her sister; PW-5, who turned hostile; PWs 6, 7 and 8, who deposed
(1) It is only when there is penetrative sexual assault which implies sexual contact with or without consent of minor victim, that offences under POCSO Act are committed.(2) Only in absence of birth ....
The court established that the burden of proving a victim's age lies with the prosecution, and the absence of reliable evidence necessitates giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The conviction of the appellant was overturned due to insufficient evidence proving the prosecutrix's minority, emphasizing that consensual relationships cannot be classified as criminality without c....
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age as on the date of the incident. Under these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of o....
It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration - In a criminal trial, importance of questi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
