Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
BUDI HABUNG
Ogom Tayeng Son of Late Okeng Tayeng – Appellant
Versus
State of AP represented by the PP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. mandatory obligation of the special court to record a reasoned finding on the victim's age under the pocso act and jj act. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court grants petition for age determination while rejecting request for witness recall to prevent trial delay. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
BUDI HABUNG, J.
Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Toni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 122/2025 in POCSO Case No. 26/2019 arising out of Women P.S. Case No. 17/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court has refused the petitioner’s prayer for determination of the age of the victim.
3. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 1
The court held that determining a victim's age is a mandatory statutory obligation for a Special Court, requiring a reasoned order based on evidence. However, the recall of witnesses is discretionary....
The court reaffirmed the necessity of strict compliance with procedural requirements in cases involving minors under the POCSO Act, while also highlighting the importance of the defense raising relev....
The accused's right to present defense evidence on age determination is essential to uphold fair trial standards, particularly under POCSO proceedings.
The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, affirming that consent is irrelevant when the victim is a minor, and established the victim's age as 16 years through credible evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of age determination in cases under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the need to establish foundational facts, including the proof of the ....
For age determination in juvenile cases, documentary proof outweighs medical testing, as specified in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The jurisdiction of a Special Court under the special legislation is strictly dependent on the victim's age. When age is disputed, the court must conduct a formal inquiry under the relevant juvenile ....
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
