IMPORTANT POINT
The significance of consistent school records in determining the age of a victim, as emphasized by the court and supported by relevant legal provisions and case law.

JUDGMENT

1. By order dated 08.05.2019, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal East, dismissed Criminal Misc. Case No.156 of 2018 (Ref: Special Trial (POCSO) No.13 of 2015). Aggrieved thereby, the applicant therein, the accused in the main case, filed this revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

2. By order dated 11.06.2019, this Court granted stay of further proceedings in Special Trial (POCSO) No.13 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal East.

3. Heard Mr. N.Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. R.K.Umakanta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

4. Special Trial (POCSO) No.13 of 2015 arose out of FIR No.14(9)2014 WPS-IE, registered under Sections 366, 366-A and 376 IPC along with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused allegedly committed criminal acts upon the complainant's minor daughter. However, a charge was framed against the accused by the learned Special Judge only in relation to the offence alleged under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After the examination of 8(eight) witnesses during the trial, the case was fixed for final arguments. At that stage, the accused moved the subject application under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (for brevity, 'the Act of 2000') and Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, (for brevity, 'the Rules of 2007') to medically ascertain the age of the victim girl.

5. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the learned Special Judge noted that the prosecution had produced the victim girl's Admit Card for appearing at the HSLC Examination (Ex.P-3), wherein her date of birth was shown as 23.09.1998. Further, upon the filing of the subject application, the learned Special Judge conducted an inquiry and in the course thereof, the Headmaster of Heingang High School, Heingang, and the Headmistress of Y.Tampha High School, Kontha Ahallup, where the victim girl had studied, were examined as CW-1 and DW-1 respectively. CW-1 deposed that as per the Admission Register of his school (Ex.C-1), the victim girl's date of birth was 23.09.1998. This Register reflected that the victim girl had come from Y.Tampha High School on transfer. DW-1, the Headmistress of the said school, brought the Admission Register pertaining to the years 2003-2007 (Ex.D-1). Therein, it was recorded that the victim girl's date of birth was 23.09.1998. However, there was some amount of overwriting in this Register in relation to her date of birth, apart from others. DW-1 claimed that she had no knowledge about the same. Further, the list of names of Class-VIII students of the school, submitted to the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur (Ex.D-2), was produced by DW-1. Therein also, the date of birth of the victim girl was recorded as 23.09.1998. The counterfoil for issuing the Provisional Certificate in respect of the victim girl was produced by DW-1 and marked as Ex.D-3. This document also reflected the date of birth of the victim girl as 23.09.1998. This document was issued when the victim girl left the school.

The learned Special Judge noted that though there was overwriting in Ex.D-1, pertaining to the academic years 2003-2007, the Admission Register (Ex.C-1) of Heingang High School showed that her date of birth was 23.09.1998 and this document was issued later. As all the documents reflected the same date as the date of birth of the victim girl, the learned Special Judge opined that there were no grounds to suspect any fabrication or manipulation of the records, in spite of the overwriting in Ex.D-1. It is on the strength of this reasoning that the learned Special Judge dismissed the application.

6. Mr. N.Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel, would argue that once a reasonable doubt was raised as to the date of birth of the victim girl, the benefit thereof ought to have been given to the accused