Age determination for legal offenses relies on credible documents; charges quashed when the victim exceeds legal age.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026)

The petitioners who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1315 of 2025 of Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam, filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 BNSS praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act , 2006 and Section 3(a), 4, 5j(ii), 5I, 6, 16, 17 and 21 of POCSO Act and Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the deceased victim who was the daughter of the 2^nd petitioner, while she was aged 17, started living along with the 1^st petitioner as his wife, with the knowledge and consent of the families of both sides, from January 2021 onwards. It is also alleged that, while so, the 1^st petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault upon the deceased, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 19.10.2021.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in January 2021, when the deceased started living along with the 1^st petitioner, she was aged more than 19 years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the offences as alleged against the petitioners will not stand. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has produced Annexure-A2, Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the deceased, which shows that her date of birth is 06.08.2001. It is true that in the Birth Certificate of the deceased, her date of birth is shown as 05.05.2002.

4. However, relying upon Section 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , the learned counsel would argue that, only in the absence of a school admission register or matriculation certificate, birth certificate can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the victim.

5. Sub Section 2 of Section 94 of the JJ Act reads as follows:

“(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining-

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.”

6. In the light of the above provision, the date of Birth Certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, if available, is to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the age of the victim. Only in the absence of such a certificate, the birth certificate of the victim can be relied upon and in the absence of the above documents alone ossification test can be relied upon.

7. In the instant case, since the petitioners have produced the SSLC certificate of the victim, which shows her date of birth as 06.08.2001, in January 2021, she had crossed 19 years and as such, the offences alleged against the petitioners will not stand. Moreover, Annexure-A1 birth certificate is seen obtained only on 23.09.2025, after the death of the victim.

8. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, as the