Ayyaz Mohammad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 343, 366, 368, 376(2)(n), 376(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3(A), 4, 5(L), 6 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94(2) - Determination of age of victim - Statutory hierarchy for age determination - Rule 12(3) postulates a specific sequence: first, matriculation or equivalent certificate; in its absence, date of birth certificate from the school first attended; next, birth certificate from a corporation/municipal authority/panchayat; and only in the absence of these, medical opinion - If reliable school records are available, conducting an ossification test is not mandatory, and the failure to do so, even if recommended by a medical expert, does not affect the prosecution's case. (Paras 16, 17, 20, 21, 24)

(B) Criminal Law - Evidence - DNA report - Positive DNA match between the accused and the victim constitutes strong scientific evidence that implicates the accused. (Paras 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
A minor girl was abducted by two individuals while heading for nature's call and was forcibly confined in a house where she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The victim was recovered from the house of the appellant on the third day of the incident. The prosecution presented testimony from the victim, her parents, and a school headmaster, along with a positive DNA report. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the victim was not a minor and that the prosecution failed to conduct an ossification test despite a medical recommendation.

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's age to be below 18 years based on the scholar register of the school first attended, which is prioritized over medical opinion under the statutory rules. The school register produced by the defense was deemed doubtful and unauthenticated. The DNA report positively matched the appellant, and the victim's testimony was found to be consistent and credible.

Issues: Whether the victim was a minor on the date of the incident and whether the failure to conduct an ossification test, despite a medical recommendation, constituted a serious flaw in the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: Age determination must strictly follow the hierarchy established under the Juvenile Justice Rules. Medical evidence such as ossification tests are to be sought only in the absence of documentary evidence (matriculation, school, or birth certificates). Therefore, the absence of an ossification test is irrelevant if a valid school record is available to prove minority.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against conviction for kidnapping and rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Appellant claimed no evidence and relationship; State argued evidence sufficient and minor consent irrelevant. (Para 8 , 9 )

3. Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld. (Para 35 , 36 )

4. What hierarchy determines the age of a victim in POCSO cases?

Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules applies: first matriculation certificate, then school first attended, then birth certificate, then medical opinion. (Para 17 , 18 )

5. Is an ossification test mandatory when a doctor recommends it?

No, if reliable documentary evidence (e.g., school records) exists, it is conclusive; ossification test is not mandatory. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

6. Is the consent of a minor victim relevant in a rape case?

No, consent of a minor is irrelevant; even if she accompanied willingly, the offence stands because she is a minor. (Para 17 , 34 )

JUDGMENT :

Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, J.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Deosar, District Singrauli (M.P.), in Special Case No.59 of 2020, whereby appellant has been convicted for offences as under:-

2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 26.6.2019, a missing report was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix to the effect that on 25.6.2019, the prosecutrix had gone to see a Baraat in the neighbourhood but did not come back. On being enquired, a friend of the prosecutrix informed that the prosecutrix had gone towards the river. Thereafter the prosecutrix was searched at various places but could not be traced. On the basis of aforesaid report, an FIR was lodged against unknown person vide crime no. 252 of 2019 under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jiyawan.

3. During course of investigation on 27.6.2019, the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the appellant at village Harra Chandel. On the said date, the statements of the father of the prosecutrix and friend of the prosecutrix were recorded. On 28.6.2019, after obtaining the consent of the parents of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to District Hospital Waidhan. On 28.6.2019, the police statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. On investigation, it was found that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix under the false pretext of marriage on the back side of the house of the prosecutrix and thereafter in the house of the appellant.

4. After due investigation, an offence was registered against the appellant and his father namely Nazar Mohammad at Police Station Jiyawan under Sections 363, 343, 366-A, 368, 376(C), 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 /6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and charge-sheet was filed before Special judge (POCSO Act, 2012).

5. The Special Judge framed the charges under Sections 363, 366, 343, 368, 376 (3), 376(2)(N) of the IPC and Section 3(A) read with Section 4 & 5 (L) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant and under Sections 343, 368 of the IPC and Section 19(1) read with Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act against the father of the appellant namely Nazar Mohammad.

6. Both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused examined Ramakant Sharma (DW-1), Head Master of Govt. Middle School, Harra Chandel, District Singrauli as a defence witness.

7. The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted accused Nazar Mohammad of the offence under Sections 343, 368 of the IPC and Sections 19(1) read with Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act and convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. It is contended that there is no cogent or plausible evidence to establish the complicity of the present appellant in the alleged offence. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was in a continuous relationship with the present appellant.

9. Per contra, Shri Arvind Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent– State, supports the impugned judgment. He submits that after proper analysis of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under the aforesaid sections, and no error has been committed in the findings recorded by the trial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN, JJ.
Ayyaz Mohammad - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 9382 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What hierarchy determines the age of a victim in POCSO cases?

5. Is an ossification test mandatory when a doctor recommends it?

6. Is the consent of a minor victim relevant in a rape case?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVIVEK AGARWAL, RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN, JJ.Ayyaz Mohammad - AppellantVersus The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 9382 of 2022Decided On : 27-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What hierarchy determines the age of a victim in POCSO cases?

5. Is an ossification test mandatory when a doctor recommends it?

6. Is the consent of a minor victim relevant in a rape case?

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN, JJ.
Ayyaz Mohammad - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 9382 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2026