The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence for age determination in sexual offences, preferring statutory documents over inconsistent records, thereby reinforcing the accused's benefit of doubt principle.

ORDER :

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.

1. The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matterare tabulated herein below:

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is argued that age of the prosecutrix has not been proved and is doubtful. Inviting the Court’s attention towards written report and the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 180 (3) of the B.N.S.S., it has been submitted that although, the prosecutrix had admittedly passed the Class X Examination, the investigating agency failed to collect her Secondary School Examination mark- sheet. He has further pointed out that school record collected during investigation reflects her date of birth as 06.03.2010, whereas, the prosecutrix herself mentioned her date of birth as 06.03.2007 in both the written report and her statement under (3) B.N.S.S.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 specifically prescribes the hierarchy of documents to be relied upon for age determination, giving primacy to the date of birth certificate from the school (or the matriculation/Secondary School Examination certificate), followed by birth certificate from the municipal authority, and only thereafter permitting medical opinion. In the present case, despite the availability of a statutorily preferred document i.e. Class X mark-sheet, the police did not collect the same. Instead, they relied upon inconsistent and doubtful school records, which stand contradicted by the prosecutrix’s own disclosure of age.

5. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel has produced a copy of the prosecutrix’s Secondary School Examination result/mark-sheet downloaded from the website of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, which also records her date of birth as 06.03.2007. Based on this date, the prosecutrix would have been 17 years, 5 months and 7 days on the date of the first alleged incident, i.e. 13.08.2024. Learned Senior Counsel has, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the statutory mandate of Section 94 of the Act of 2015. Hence, age of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be conclusively established.

6. It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. itself indicates that the petitioner and the prosecutrix, being of a similar age group, were acquainted with each other and were in a consensual relationship. They regularly communicated through social media platforms and over the phone. Learned Senior Counsel has also highlighted that although, the prosecution alleges that first incident occurred in 2024, the FIR was lodged only on 22.05.2025. Such an inordinate and unexplained delay, according to learned Senior Counsel, gravely undermines the prosecution case and is fatal to its credibility.

7. It has also been contended that challan has already been filed i