The court upheld that admissibility of school records as evidence ought to be judged on relevance rather than authenticity at initial stages, maintaining the rights of the victims under POCSO.

ORDER

Challenging the propriety of the order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 112 of 2023 in P.S.C. No. 11 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and seeking its quashment.

2. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Prosecutor appearing for State.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, the petitioner is an accused in the above referred Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and under Sections 5 (j)(ii) and 5(l), read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, pending trial before the Court at Kamareddy. During the course of trial proceedings, the prosecution/complainant filed a petition under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking to receive the original bona fide certificate of the victim girl and mark it as an exhibit. The trial Court, upon considering the objections and merits, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/accused.

Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been instituted.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Investigating Agency failed to collect any material establishing the age of the alleged victim during the course of investigation. At this belated stage, the present petition has been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It is further urged that the bona fide certificate records the victim’s name as ‘G. Bhavani,’ whereas in the charge-sheet her name is reflected as ‘Ganneri Bhavani Nirmala.’ Moreover, the victim, examined as P.W.2, deposed that she was born on 14.07.2004, but the bona fide certificate mentions her date of birth as 11.07.2004. This material contradiction, it is submitted, ought to have been duly considered by the Court below while adjudicating the petition. Additionally, as the petition was filed after the examination of the victim girl (P.W.2), the petitioner has lost the opportunity to confront her on this aspect. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit , (1988) Supp SCC 604 , wherein it was held that the date of birth mentioned in the school register does not carry any evidentiary value. Similarly, in P. Yuvaprakash v. State, represented by Inspector of Police , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, the Hon’ble Court observed that extracts of the admission register and transfer certificate cannot be relied upon for determining the age of a victim in POCSO cases. In light of these settled principles, it is urged that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and its implementation would cause grave prejudice to the rights and interests of the petitioner. Hence, interference by this Hon’ble Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the bona fide certificate was issued by the school of the victim girl on the basis of entries duly recorded in its official register. The objection of the petitioner, that such a certificate is not legally acceptable evidence, cannot be entertained at the stage of merely receiving the document into record. The trial Court has rightly observed that the genuineness of the bona fide certificate can be subjected to scrutiny during cross-examination of the relevant witnesses. As regards the discrepancy in the date of birth, it is pointed out that the difference is only of ten days within