##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:47222]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1419/2022 CNR: RJHC010795422022 | URN: CRLR / 3380U / 2022 Bajrang Kumar S/o Bhoj Raj Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Chak

1 Bm Tehsil Khajuwala Dist. Bikaner ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Nanuram S/o Shri Madanlal Bawari, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Chak 1 Bm Ps Khajuwala Dist. Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Rawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

REPORTABLE 28/09/2026 F ACTUAL BACKGROUND AND CHALLENGE

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Bikaner, District Bikaner, in Sessions Case No.52/2021, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR No.101/2021 came to be registered at Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 450, 342 and

376-D Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as “IPC”), Sections 5(G)/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POSCO Act”) and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act), pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted for the offences noted therein.

2.1 During trial, the prosecutrix, while recording her statement on 22.09.2022, disclosed that she had studied from Class I to VI at Kanya Pathshala, Nuva, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, and that her marksheets and other educational documents were in her possession. The petitioner accordingly moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the said documents for determination of her age, which came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2022, giving rise to the present revision petition.

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said documents were material for determination of the prosecutrix’s age and, therefore, ought to have been summoned under Section 91 Cr.P.C.; however, the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the material on record, dismissed the application vide order dated 18.10.2022.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and supported the order impugned passed by the learned Court below. Despite service to the complainant, none appeared on behalf of the complainant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as well as perused the material available on record.

AGE AS A FOUNDATIONAL FACT IN A POCSO PROSECUTIO N

6. After perusing the material available on record, particularly the order impugned, this Court finds that the question which arises for consideration is not merely whether the documents sought by the petitioner are relevant in an abstract sense, but whether the determination of the age of the prosecutrix has a bearing upon the very nature and legal consequences of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. In the facts of the present case, the answer, in the considered opinion of this Court, has to be in the affirmative. The question of age, in a prosecution arising out of an offence under Section 376 IPC, cannot be treated as an incidental circumstance, particularly when the prosecution has simultaneously invoked the provisions of the POCSO Act. The age of the prosecutrix, therefore, assumes a significance which goes beyond a mere question of fact and touches upon the legal character of the alleged occurrence itself.

6.1. The relevance of age becomes still more pronounced where the prosecution seeks to attract