The determination of a child's age in legal proceedings must prioritize valid educational documents over medical examinations unless substantial evidence indicates document manipulation.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned ASJ07/Special Court, POCSO Act, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Case No. 220/19 arising out of FIR No. 22/2019 registered under Sections 366 (A)/372/506/34 IPC at Police Station K.M. Pur and seeking directions to constitute a Medical Board to conduct the ossification/bone test of the child victim/respondent No. 2. The charge sheet in the instant case has been filed under Sections 366 /366(A)/370A/372/420/506/120B/34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Sessions Court has rejected the petitioner's prayer seeking directions for conducting the ossification test of the child victim.

3. Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on 16.01.2019 on a complaint made by the child victim, wherein she stated that her date of birth being 12.08.2001, she was about 17 years and 4 months of age at the time, which fact finds mention in her school documents as well as in her Aadhar Card. It was further stated that when she was residing in Kotla Mubarakpur with her family, she met the accused Shabnam through her class friend, in the second week of October, 2018, as her family was looking for a rented accommodation. Shabnam started visiting the child victim's house and offered her education and employment in Bhatinda, Punjab. On enquiry by the family of the child victim, it was informed by accused Shabnam that the job would be of a receptionist in a factory. As the child victim's family was undergoing financial hardship, they accepted the offer, for which Shabnam demanded Rs.50,000/-. In lieu of money, the child victim's mother gave her jewellery to Shabnam. On 20.10.2018, Shabnam took the child victim to the house of the present petitioner in Bhatinda, Punjab, where initially the petitioner's family attempted to persuade the child victim to marry him but when the child victim refused, they started threatening her at gunpoint. On 24/25.10.2018, the child victim was brought to Delhi and taken to Saket Court, wherein she was made to sign some papers. Thereafter, she was taken to a shop in Vasant Vihar and her thumb impression was taken for the purpose of getting another Aadhar Card in her name. Subsequently, she was taken to Ghaziabad where she stayed locked overnight at the house of Shabnam. On 26.10.2018, she was taken back to Bhatinda by the petitioner and the husband of accused Shabnam. One day, upon hearing the petitioner talking to his mother, where it was suggested by her that the child victim be made to do the work of prostitution, the child victim sought the help of her sister to escape and reached the house of her parents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to assailing the invocation of Section 4 of the POCSO Act on the ground that at the relevant time, the child victim was a major. It was submitted that though as per prosecution case, the child victim's date of birth is 12.08.2001, different dates of birth are found mentioned in certain documents, according to some of which she was a major at the relevant time. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to a certificate stated to be issued in the name of the child victim by a school in Deoria, U.P. as well as to an Aadhar Card and a PAN Card issued in her name. In these documents, the date of