The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the Aadhaar card to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix as per the mandate of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

The present Revision Petition is filed under section 401 Cr.P.C. to impugn the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Court of Sh. Vinod Yadav, ASJ-01, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi arising out of FIR bearing no. 1799/2015 titled as State V Rohit Kumar.

2. The charge sheet as per the mandate of section 173 Cr.P.C was filed after conclusion of investigation arising out of FIR bearing no. 1799/2015 registered under sections 363/366/366A/376 IPC & under section 4/6 POCSO Act, 2012 at PS Mangol Puri, Delhi on the basis of complaint made by "K". The complainant in the complaint dated 10.09.2015 stated that her daughter namely "R" stated to be aged about 16 years was found to be missing on 09.09.2015 at about 11:00am and appeared to have left the house without informing any other person. The complainant suspected the respondent as the person who has taken away "R". Thereafter, FIR bearing no. 1799/2015 under section 363 IPC was got registered.

3. During investigation it was revealed that "R" got married with the respondent on 12.09.2015 and had also refused to undergo medical examination. The statement of "R" 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. "R" also stated her year of the birth as 1994 and was aged about 21 years.

4. The Court of Sh. Vinod Yadav, ASJ-01, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide impugned order dated 29.07.2016 has discharged the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363/366/366A/376 IPC & under section 6 POCSO Act. It was observed as under:

The accused stood charge sheeted in this matter for commission of offences punishable U/S 363/366/366A/376 IPC r/w Section 4/6 of POCSO Act. The FIR in the matter was got recorded on the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix with regard to the prosecutrix having left the house without informing anybody on 10.09.2015 at about 11 a.m. and she having not returned back till late in the night. Thereafter the prosecutrix herself returned back home on 23.09.2015 at about 9 p.m. She was taken to PS by her mother, as a missing persons report was lying registered there in this regard. She was taken to hospital for her medical examination wherein she claimed herself to be aged about 21 years and having gone along with the accused of her own free will. She categorically refused to have herself examined internally. In her statement recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C she did not level allegations of either kidnapping or sexual assault against the accused. The IO has taken into possession the documents with regard to the marriage of prosecutrix with the accused as well as her Adhar Card which show her date of birth to be 01.01.1994. It is clearly apparent that the accused and the prosecutrix were in love with each other and the prosecutrix had represented to the accused her age to be 21 years. The date of birth of the prosecutrix as appearing in her school records is not based upon any birth certificate issued by MCD or any other statutory authority. Even the date of birth of the accused in the records of the school first attended by him is 11.12.1999, however he has been charge sheeted in the matter on the basis of ossification test report wherein his age has been opined to be between 20-22 years.

In view of the aforesaid material, I do not find any evidence which could prima-facie indicate about the commission of offence U/S 363/366/366A IPC against the accused.

As far as the ingredients of offences punishable U/S 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act are concerned strangely there is no authentic document on record which could give clear indication about actual date of birth of the prosecutrix.

In a some what similar case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21.07.2015 vide Criminal Revision petition No. 266/14 titled as Umesh Vs. State, the order of discharge of th