Prosecution Must Prove Victim's Age U/S 94 Juvenile Justice Act For POCSO To Apply: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently held that in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the age of the victim must be conclusively established either through school records or medical evidence, as required under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal appeal arising from an acquittal order passed by the Trial Court, which had acquitted the accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.Background:The prosecution alleged that the accused approached the victim at a shop, took her to his house, and showed her an obscene video. When the victim managed to escape, the accused allegedly threatened to kill her father if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The victim later narrated the events to her family, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.The Trial Court acquitted the accused. In the appeal filed by the State, the main issue concerned the determination of the victim's age to establish whether an offence under the POCSO Act was made out. The Investigating Officer had produced only a photocopy of the document relating to the victim's age, and no effort was made to prove her age in compliance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.Upholding the acquittal, the Patna High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that the procedure for determining age under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, should also apply when assessing the age of a child victim. The Court clarified that since the alleged offence occurred on November 9, 2018, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was in force, having replaced the 2007 Rules. Section 94 of the 2015 Act now governs the procedure for age determination, requiring proof through school or matriculation certificates, or in their absence, through medical evidence. The Court observed that sub-section (2) of Section 94 prescribes a substantially similar procedure as the 2007 Rules. The Court noted:13. In the present case, the victim was claimed by prosecution that she was minor and the learned trial court has recorded the finding that the birth certificate was not proved. The investigating officer has also received the photocopy and verified it online and did not annexed any verification report.In its final analysis, the Court referred to Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and held that the procedure laid down therein must be followed while determining the age of a child victim. The Court observed:14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion made above, the age of victim must conclusively proved through school record or through medical evidence but in the present case the medical evidence regarding age or any documentary proof has not been proved and the learned trial court has recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the said ground…The Court held that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court is only required to examine whether the findings of the trial court are perverse or illegal. It reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and once acquitted, a “double presumption” of innocence operates in their favour.In the present case, the Court noted that the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, casting doubt on its authenticity. It further observed that there were material inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and that no independent witness had been examined to corroborate the incident.Cause Title: XXX v. State of BiharCase Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3416 of 2025Appearance: Mr. Abhinav Alok, Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, and Ms. Megha appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Ramchandra Singh appeared for the State.Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 88

Prosecution Must Prove Victim's Age U/S 94 Juvenile Justice Act For POCSO To Apply: Patna High Court

Rushil Batra

Tags