HP High Court: School Record First Attended is Preferred Proof for Victim's Age in POCSO Cases Under JJ Act S.94 - 2025-05-19

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction in POCSO Case, Affirms Primacy of School Records for Age Determination

Shimla , HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed an appeal filed by Shehzad Ali Shah , thereby upholding his conviction and sentence for kidnapping, and sexually assaulting a minor girl. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , reiterated the established legal principle that for determining the age of a victim in POCSO cases, the certificate from the school first attended holds precedence over other forms of evidence like panchayat records, as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Case Background

The appellant, Shehzad Ali Shah , was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan , on July 12, 2022, and sentenced on July 13, 2022. He was found guilty of offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping) & 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) read with Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.

The Accusations: The prosecution's case, initiated by the victim's father's complaint on November 8, 2016, was that his 14-year-old daughter (born March 17, 2002) complained of a stomach ache. The accused, Shehzad Ali Shah , offered to take her to a doctor but instead took her to Maharashtra, where he resided with her and committed sexual intercourse. The victim and accused were later found in a fish market in Vasai , Maharashtra.

The Trial Court's Findings: The trial court found the victim to be a minor at the time of the incident. It held that the accused had taken her from her lawful guardian without consent and subsequently raped her. The victim's testimony was corroborated by her previous statement, forensic reports (including DNA evidence linking the accused to semen found on a bedsheet from where they stayed), and testimonies of her father and sister. The accused was, however, acquitted of charges under the SC&ST Act.

Grounds of Appeal

Appellant's Contentions: Mr. Karan Kapoor, counsel for the appellant, primarily challenged the trial court's finding on the victim's minority. He argued: * Lack of conclusive documentary evidence for the victim's age, questioning the authenticity and proof of school records. * Failure by the prosecution to obtain a birth certificate from the Panchayat. * The victim’s failure to raise a hue and cry, suggesting consent (an argument deemed irrelevant for a minor).

State's Rebuttal: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General for the State, countered that: * The victim's date of birth was duly proved by the record of the school she first attended. * The victim's testimony was credible and corroborated by substantial evidence.

High Court's Rationale and Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and legal submissions, particularly focusing on the determination of the victim's age.

On Victim 's Age Determination: Reliance on School Records and JJ Act The Court extensively discussed the legal framework for age determination, citing several Supreme Court precedents:

* Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263: Established that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (similar to Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015) should guide age determination for victims in POCSO cases. It outlines a hierarchy: matriculation certificate, then date of birth in the school first attended, then birth certificate from a municipal authority/panchayat, and lastly, medical opinion.

* Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. (2019) 12 SCC 370: Noted that Section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act, 2015, places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation certificate in the same primary category.

* P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 846): Reaffirmed the hierarchy under Section 94 of the JJ Act.

The Court emphasized a key passage: > "Therefore, as per Rule 12(3)(a)(ii) of Juvenile Justice, Rule 2007 and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the certificate from the school which was first attended by the victim has to be preferred to the birth certificate which falls within Rule 12 (iii)(a) of the Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007 or Section 94 (ii) of the JJ Act." (Para 17)

The Court found that the prosecution had correctly relied on the admission register of the school first attended by the victim (proved by PW-19, Kunji Lal Raghuvanshi), which showed her date of birth as 17.03.2002. This made her 14 years old at the time of the incident in November 2016. > "In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the birth certificate obtained from the school first attended by the victim, and there was no requirement to obtain the birth certificate from the panchayat or the municipal council of the area where the victim was born." (Para 18)

The defence's argument about the improbability of a seven-year-old being admitted to first class was dismissed as unhelpful to their case.

On Merits of the Case:

* Corroboration of Victim 's Testimony: The victim’s account of being taken to Maharashtra and subjected to sexual intercourse was found to be corroborated by the testimony of Rinku (PW-3, who accompanied police to Maharashtra), her father (PW-2), her sister (PW-8), and other witnesses regarding the accused taking her on a motorcycle.

* Evidentiary Value of Accused's Statement (S.313 Cr.P.C.): The accused admitted to taking the victim on a motorcycle, a fact the Court noted could be used to lend credence to the prosecution's case, citing precedents like State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) and Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh (2002) .

* Significance of Medical and DNA Evidence: Medical examination (PW-10, Dr. Geeta Gupta) found nothing to suggest sexual intercourse had not occurred. Crucially, the DNA profile from semen on the bedsheet recovered from where the accused and victim stayed matched the accused's DNA (Ext.PW-16/J). The Court cited Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) on the corroborative value of DNA reports.

* Victim 's Conduct and Consent Immaterial Due to Minority: The argument that the victim did not raise a hue and cry was dismissed: > "The conduct of the victim would have been material had she been major because this conduct implies the consent of the victim; however, the victim was minor, and her conduct is immaterial; therefore, no advantage can be derived from the conduct of the victim." (Para 37)

The Court concluded: > "Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident when she was taken out of the custody of her father, she was subjected to sexual intercourse; therefore, the accused was rightly held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 of IPC." (Para 38)

Sentencing Affirmed

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court: * Section 363 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of ₹5000. * Section 366 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of ₹10,000. * Section 6 of POCSO Act r/w Section 376 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for ten years (the minimum prescribed) and a fine of ₹10,000. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Court noted that the sentences were not excessive given the age of the victim and the nature of the offences.

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The decision reinforces the stringent application of laws protecting children and the established procedures for determining a victim's age in such sensitive cases.