Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Kuldeep Singh Sengar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRL.A. 53/2020 | CRL.M.A. 21475/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Hariharan, S.P.M. Tripathi, Punya Rekha Angara, Vasundhara N., Aman Akhtar, Aishwarya Singh, Rahul Poonia, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Arjan Mandal, Shambhavi Singh
For the Respondents: Anubha Bhardwaj, Anurag Modi, Ananya Shamshery, Mayank Bawa, Riddhi Grover, Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Kshtij Singh, Sikander, Urvi Mohan

Determination of a victim's age under protective legislation requires a factual inquiry best suited for the trial stage. Appellate courts should not permit the introduction of new evidence for age determination if the trial court’s findings are consistent with the evidence on record and the required documentation is unavailable.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Age determination of victim - Appellate stage - Whether, after conclusion of trial and conviction, appellate court can permit further evidence for age determination when such documents were unavailable at relevant time and not produced during trial - Held, determination of age under the legislative framework is a matter of evidentiary inquiry best suited for trial stage - Given the detailed scrutiny of school records and other testimonies by the trial court confirming minority status, and the clear correspondence from the educational institution stating no such certificate was submitted or existed at the time of admission, the request to reopen evidence at appellate stage is a roving inquiry and is unwarranted. (Paras 11, 13, 18, 20, 21)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court is not intended to be a forum for a fresh roving inquiry into documents that were neither available nor produced during trial, especially when the foundation of the trial court’s findings regarding the status of the victim is well-supported by the evidence on record. (Paras 19, 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, claiming victimhood, sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of a birth certificate from an educational institution during the pendency of the appeal to substantiate their age as a minor. The trial court had already determined the minority status of the prosecutrix based on existing records, including school admission registers and oral testimony, which the investigating agency had previously presented.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that documentation confirming the age, specifically a birth certificate, was not provided to the educational institution at the time of enrollment. The trial court had already established the status based on a holistic review of the school records and witness testimonies available under the relevant statutory provisions. The request to re-evaluate this at the appellate stage would improperly initiate a fresh roving inquiry.

Issues: Whether an appellate court should permit the production of additional documents to prove the age of a victim when the trial court has already adjudicated this matter based on the evidence available during trial, and whether such an application constitutes a valid exercise under the framework for age determination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that determination of age under the protective framework requires an evidentiary inquiry typically reserved for the trial court. As the evidence on record sufficiently established the minority status and the document sought to be introduced was nonexistent or unavailable per the educational institution's own records, there was no justification for reopening the evidence at the appellate level.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicant seeks to produce additional evidence regarding date of birth of the victim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. trial court has already definitively determined the victim's age based on existing evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. procedure for age determination under jj act and inadmissibility of fresh evidence at appellate stage. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. application for additional evidence rejected; appeal proceedings to continue based on existing record. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.M.A. 21475/2025

2. This application has been filed by the victim seeking the following prayers:

“(a) Allow the present application and take on record the documents annexed with the present application; and

(b) Direct the recording of further evidence of P.W. 3 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh and P.W. 4 Shri Virender Singh, or of any other relevant official of A.B.S. Public School, after production of a certificate of the date of birth of the Victim as recorded in the records of the school.

3. The present application was considered by the Court on 15th January, 2026, and having perused the same as also having heard the parties, the Court had directed the victim to file the additional documents sought to be brought on record. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“11. During the pendency of the present appeal, the present application being CRL.M.A. 21475/2025 has been filed by the Survivor, for bringing on record certain documents and for leading further evidence.

12. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, ld. Counsel for the Survivor submits that the present application has been filed on behalf of the Survivor to lead further evidence in respect of her date of birth.

13. Upon a query from the Court, ld. Counsel further submits that the Survivor prays for recording of further evidence of PW-3, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh and PW-4, Mr. Virender Singh, and any other relevant official of A.B.S., Public School, along with production of certain documents, including date of the birth of the Survivor from the school records.

14. It is clarified by the ld. Counsel for the Survivor that the aforesaid documents are part of the Trial Court record. This position is disputed by Mr. N Hariharan, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant.

15. Heard. The Court has perused the application and notices that there are no documents forming part of the school record, that have been attached with the present application.

16. Ld. Counsel for the Survivor seeks time to file the aforesaid documents.

17. Accordingly, let the aforesaid documents be filed by 31st January, 2026, with an advanced copy being served upon ld. Counsel for the Appellant and CBI.

18. Ld. Counsels for the Appellant and CBI are permitted to file a reply to this application.

19. The application shall be considered on the next date of hearing.”

4. Today, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, ld. Counsel appearing for the victim submits that he restricts the prayer in this application for leading additional evidence only to the date of birth certificate from the A.B.S. Public School, Saidapur, Chivlaha, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter “concerned school”) where the victim had studied. It is submitted that the said document ought to have been called for during the trial in order to remove any doubt that may arise in respect of the age of the victim.

5. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter “the JJ Act”) for determining the age of the victim, first and foremost, the date of birth certificate from the concerned school had to be called and produced. However, the same had not been done by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter “CBI”). It is Mr. Pracha’s submission that the CBI was hand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPrathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJKuldeep Singh Sengar – AppellantVersusCentral Bureau Of Investigation – RespondentCRL.A. 53/2020 | CRL.M.A. 21475/2025

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Kuldeep Singh Sengar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRL.A. 53/2020 | CRL.M.A. 21475/2025