The presumption of juvenility under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act is rebuttable, allowing the court to accept evidence that contradicts the matriculation certificate regarding age.

ORDER :

ORDER ON DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2024

1. Delay in filing the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

2. Delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.

3. The delay condonation application is, accordingly allowed.

ORDER ON CRIMINAL MISC. (LEAVE TO APPEAL) APPLICATION

4. This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 06.02.2024, passed by Special Judge (Juvenile Court) Room No. 1/Additional Sessions Judge, Mau in Special Sessions No. 26 of 2017 (State Vs. Sandeep Vishwakarma) Arising Out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 Police Station Ranipur, District Mau.

5. As per the prosecution case, on 23.04.2017 at about 07:30 P.M. when the informant's daughter aged about 17 years had gone to ease herself two youngsters came on a bike and took her away. The passerby informed about it to the informant. The victim was in touch with the accused Sandeep Vishwakarma from before and when the informant made necessary inquiry from the accused-opposite party, he did not inform anything to the father of the victim. On pressure being exerted, he said that the victim is with her friend and he would bring her back. On such assurance, he left his house on a motor cycle bearing registration no. UP54U-0438 and disappeared. The accused-opposite party had extended threats to the elder daughter of the informant and therefore doubt was expressed in the written report that the accused-Sandeep Vishwakarma along with his mother and brother has enticed the minor victim. On the basis of such written report, F.I.R. came to be lodged against the accused-opposite party in Case Crime No. 159 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The investigation proceeded in the matter and ultimately the victim was recovered. On the basis of her statement charge sheet was submitted against the accused-opposite party under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. Cognizance in the matter was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused-opposite party in the above sections. The accused-opposite party denied the accusations made against him and consequently the trial proceeded.

6. At the stage of trial, the informant has been produced as PW-1. The victim has appeared as PW-2 and Dr. Mamta Sharma, who conducted medical examination of the victim has been produced as PW-3 and other witnesses are formal police personnels. Various documentary evidence including the medical examination report, supplementary medical report were filed in the case.

7. The prosecution evidence was confronted to the accused-opposite party for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the evidence and has termed the evidence to be false and has pleaded his innocence. The accused-opposite party lastly submitted that the victim had come to his house on her own accord; she was major on the date of incident and he has been falsely implicated. He further stated that the victim has studied in primary institution at Akbarpur from Class-1 to 3 and he shall produce relevant evidence to prove the majority of victim.

8. The trial Court has taken up the issue of minority of the victim at the outset. There are two sets of evidence placed on record. From the side of the prosecution High School certificate of the victim has been produced wherein her date of birth is recorded as 08.05.2000. The prosecution case is that the victim was admitted in her school for the first time in Class-4 and she had not studied in any school from Class-1 to 3. On the strength of the High School certificate it was urged by the prosecution that such evidence being admissible and relevant in terms of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 2015”) the victim ought t