POCSO Age Determination: How Is The Age Of A POCSO Victim Determined?

THE APPLICABLE LAW

As per the settled and applicable law at present, as discussed in Part I of the article, the age of a victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) is determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act, 2015), which is reproduced below for ready reference:

94. Presumption and determination of age.—(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(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.

(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

THE TWO WAYS OF AGE DETERMINATION

If the above provision is closely scrutinised, it makes it clear that age determination, broadly speaking, can be done in two ways.

AGE DETERMINATION THROUGH APPEARANCE

Primarily, age is to be determined, as per Section 94(1) of the JJ Act, 2015, through the appearance of the victim. If on the basis of the appearance of the victim, the Special Court is satisfied that the victim is a child, then the Special Court shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be. It shall be the end of the matter so far as the trial court is concerned and there will be no need to undertake an age determination process as provided in Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD: THE AUTHORS’ VIEW

Whenever the Special Court is of the prima facie view, based on the appearance of the victim, that the victim is a child, it shall record the same in the case proceedings and grant the accused an opportunity to persuade the court against finalising that view. If the Special Court is convinced by the accused’s arguments, it shall hold that age cannot be determined solely on appearance and shall proceed under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015. If not convinced, it shall record its final view that the victim is a child. Once, such a view is finalised, it will be an end of the matter pertaining to age determination as far as the trial court is concerned and there will be no further inquiry as per Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015. Giving an opportunity to the accused to argue against the court’s prima facie view, will be an observance of the principle of natural justice, namely Audi Alteram Partem and the principles emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

SUPPORTIVE PRECEDENTS

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gajab Singh versus State of Haryana has held that age can be determined on the basis of physical appearance. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:

A perusal of the provisions of the Act would show that under new provisions of law, the primacy has been given to the assessment of the Board/Court as to the age of the accused. This assessment can be done on physical appearance or even on the basis of the examination by other method like putting basic question to adjudge the age and understanding of the accused. In any case, if there is any doubt in the mind of the Court/Board, then the provision prescribes that, it is the birth certificate given by the school or the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate; which shall be taken into consideration in the first instance. If these two certificates are not available, then the further certificates, as mentioned in the Section, are to be taken into consideration.

A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. in which it has been held as under:

As per the Scheme of the Act, when it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person, that the said person is a child, the Board or Committee shall record observations stating the age of the child as nearly as may be without waiting for further confirmation of the age. Therefore, the first attempt to determine the age is by assessing the physical appearance of the person when brought before the Board or the Committee. It is only in case of doubt, the process of age determination by seeking evidence becomes necessary.

AGE DETERMINATION AS PER SECTION 94(2)

In case the Special Court, on the basis of appearance, entertains a doubt as to whether the victim is a child or not, the Special Court shall necessarily resort to the procedure prescribed for age determination in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

ON WHOM DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE

If the process for age determination is undertaken as per the above provision, then the first question that arises would be: on whom does the burden of proof lie to prove the age of the victim? Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. As per the above provision, the burden of proving the age of the victim will be on the prosecution, as it is the prosecution who wishes the Court to believe that the victim was a minor, on the date of the incident, so as to bring the alleged act of the accused within the purview of the POCSO Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain versus State of West Bengal, has held that initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.

THE EVIDENCE THROUGH WHICH AGE IS TO BE FINALLY PROVED

The next question that will arise is through what kind of evidence the age of the victim is to be finally proved. The language of Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 is unambiguous in this regard. It clearly provides that the certificates mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) shall be first looked into. In case they are unavailable, only in that eventuality, birth certificates mentioned in Section 94(2)(ii) shall be looked into. Section 94(2)(iii) clearly provides that in case certificates mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) and Section 94(2)(ii), both, are unavailable, only in such a case, age shall be determined by medical age determination test as mentioned in Section 94(2)(iii). The language of the section makes it absolutely clear that through no other evidence, the age of a person can be finally determined.

In P. YuvaPrakash case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to rely upon a school transfer certificate to determine the age of the victim, as it did not belong to the description of any of the documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

USE AND EXTENT OF USE OF OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE: THE AUTHORS’ VIEW

The evidence mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 is certainly relevant and admissible in the order mentioned in the section. Does it mean no other evidence can be looked into? Here it must be remembered that finally for proving the age only the evidence mentioned in the above section is to be looked into, but any other evidence which weakens or strengthens the evidence mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 can also be looked into as it is also relevant as per section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which reads as follows:

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant ––

(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

It must be remembered that only through the evidence mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, the age of a victim can be proved; but to determine the probative value of the certificates mentioned in Section 94(2), other evidence may be looked into. The purpose of aforementioned other evidence shall be restricted solely to assisting the court in forming an opinion about the probative value of the certificates mentioned in Section 94(2) and shall not extend to becoming the sole criterion for determination of the victim’s age.

For example, date of birth certificate from the school may show the date of birth of the victim as 01.01.2001; but there may be a form filled in by the father of the victim for claiming the delivery-related hospitalisation charges of the victim’s mother in which the father of the victim has mentioned the date of birth of the victim as 01.01.2000. In such a case, the entry in the form filled in by the father can be looked into to decide the probative value of the date of birth certificate from the school. Finally, the age of the victim will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, but the use of such other evidence is only to help the court to form an opinion as to the probative value of the evidence mentioned in the above section.

EFFECT OF NEGATING OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE: THE AUTHORS’ VIEW

If such other evidence is shut from the purview of the court’s consideration, it is bound to have disastrous effects. In the aforementioned example, the victim may be determined to be a minor in case his/her age is determined as per the date of birth mentioned in the date of birth certificate from the school, but may turn out to be a major if the entry in the form filled in by the father is also taken into consideration. If the accused wants to challenge the probative value of the date of birth certificate, he should have the right to point out to the court the admission of the father of the victim regarding the victim’s date of birth in the form filled in by the father. If such evidence is removed from consideration, the Court may determine the victim to have been a child when in fact the victim may not have been a child on the date of the alleged incident and this can have a disastrous effect on the accused.

HOW TO PROVE THE CERTIFICATES

The next question that will arise is how the certificates mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 are to be proved.

Before the present JJ Act, 2015 came into force, the age of the victims under the POCSO Act was determined as per the earlier Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ((hereinafter referred to as JJ Act, 2000) and rules framed thereunder. Dealing with the JJ Act, 2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena versus State of M.P held that certificates may not be correct, but the Court, JJ Board or a Committee functioning under the JJ Act, 2000 is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go behind those certificates. It was held that only in cases where the certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, there would arise a need to order a medical examination for age determination. The relevant para of the judgment is as under:

There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination.

A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramswaroop versus State of M.P., has held in a matter pertaining to the age determination of a POCSO Act victim as under:

We are of the view that if prosecution is able to prove the date of birth in consonance with the requirement of J.J. Act by producing the Admission Register or any other document, the Court is not required to go beyond and behind the said document and conduct a roving inquiry as to on what basis said date of birth was recorded. We say so because the legislative intent ingrained in Section 94 shows that the law makers have placed reliance on certain documents on the strength of which age can be determined. If said test is fulfilled by producing relevant document, the Courts are not obliged to examine further source of such declaration or entry mentioned in the said document.

THE ROVING INQUIRY AND THE PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DEBATE: THE AUTHORS’ VIEW

The question is would the mere presentation of the certificates tantamount to proof or will the birth entry in the certificate be required to be further proved?

We must bear in mind that the POCSO Act did not and does not make the JJ Act, 2000 or the JJ Act, 2015 applicable to the age determination process for victims under the POCSO Act. It is through judicial precedents that the Courts have started applying the JJ Act procedure for age determination of victims under the POCSO Act.

Judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh versus State of Haryana, Mahadeo versus State of Maharashtra, P. YuvaPrakash versus State and State of U.P. versus Anurudh & Another, discussed in detail in Part I of the article, have only made the procedure of age determination as prescribed under the JJ Act applicable to age determination process of POCSO Act victims. No judgment has specifically made the evidentiary standards applicable for age determination in JJ Act matters applicable to age determination in POCSO Act matters. It must not be forgotten that the JJ Act and POCSO Act operate in different fields, their purposes are different along with their framework. Under the JJ Act, an inquiry is conducted not a trial and the purpose of the Act is not penal like other criminal statutes, but is reformative, rehabilitative, and reintegrative; whereas, in a criminal case under the POCSO Act, a trial is conducted and not an inquiry. It is a golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused is to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a POCSO case, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to necessarily prove that the victim was a child. Age is a necessary ingredient of every offence against the child under the POCSO Act. Hence, in order to prove the guilt of the accused under the POCSO Act, the prosecution shall necessarily have to prove the age of the victim to be below 18 years, beyond reasonable doubt. To prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child, the mere presentation of the certificates prescribed under the JJ Act would not suffice. The prosecution will have to prove the basis of the entry in the certificates by examining the person who got the entry made in the relevant register who shall also have to disclose the source of his/her information about the date of birth of the victim. The person who made the entry may also have to be examined by the prosecution. If upon consideration of the evidence and other matters before the Court, the Court thinks that the entry in the certificate has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, only then the Court will regard it as proved and not otherwise. The judgment in Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) rendered in a matter pertaining to the JJ Act and holding that Court cannot go behind the certificates and conduct a roving inquiry cannot be made applicable to age determination process under the POCSO Act as the evidentiary standards for age determination in both the cases are not the same. In a POCSO case, unlike one in a JJ Act matter, age has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and a roving inquiry is in no way restricted or barred.

A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Upendra versus State of M.P. and others, dealing with a POCSO Act matter, discarded the school entry register on account of reasonable doubt about the age of the victim. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:

When date of birth of the prosecutrix is under doubt and there is a reasonable doubt to discard the school entry register on the basis of the teacher from school and the testimony of the parents, then prosecutrix cannot be considered to be a child in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012….

Thus, it must be remembered that the judgment in Ashwani Kumar Saxena, which holds that no roving inquiry can be conducted while determining age under the JJ Act is not applicable to the age determination process under the POCSO Act, as the evidentiary standards applicable to age determination in a POCSO Act matter is proof beyond reasonable doubt, unlike one in a JJ Act age determination matter, as age is a necessary ingredient of every offence committed against a child under the POCSO Act.

OTHER THINGS TO REMEMBER

To prove any certificate mentioned in section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 29 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, if it has been issued by a public servant, the law laid down in the judgments cited below should be borne in mind.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal has held as under:

The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the ‘evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue’.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi versus Ananad Purohit has held as under:

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that entry in any public, official book, register, record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty specially enjoined by the law of the country is itself the relevant fact. To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. In Raja Janaki Nath Roy v. Jyotish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury [AIR 1941 Cal 41 : 45 CWN 141 : 193 IC 419] a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court discarded the entry in school register about the age of a party to the suit on the ground that there was no evidence to show on what material the entry in the register about the age of the plaintiff was made. The principle so laid down has been accepted by almost all the High Courts in the country, see Jagan Nath v. Mali Ram [AIR 1951 Punj 377] , Sakhi Ram v. Presiding Officer [AIR 1966 Pat 459] , Ghanchi Vora Samsuddisn Isabhai v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1970 Guj 178] and Radha Kishan Tickoo v. Bhushan Lal Tickoo [AIR 1971 J&K 62], In addition to these decisions the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras have considered the question of probative value of an entry regarding the date of birth made in the scholar's register or in school certificate in election cases. The courts have consistently held that the date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register or secondary school certificate has no probative value unless either the parents are examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined, see Jagdamba Prasad v. Jagannath Prasad, [42 ELR 465 (All HC)] K. Paramalali v. I.M. Alangam [31 ELR 401 (Mad HC)], Krishna Rao Maharu Patil v. Onkar Narayan Wagh [14 ELR 386 (Bom HC)] .

…The entries regarding dates of birth contained in the scholar's register and the secondary school examination have no probative value, as no person on whose information the dates of birth of the aforesaid candidates was mentioned in the school record was examined. In the absence of the connecting evidence the documents produced by the respondent, to prove the age of the aforesaid two candidates have no evidentiary value….

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alamelu & Another Versus State has held as under:

The transfer certificate has been issued by a government school and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.

The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murugan @ Settu versus State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in State of M.P. versus Salman Khan and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Maherban Hasan Babu Khan versus State of Maharashtra and Another are also relevant in this context.

A perusal of the above judgments show that an entry in a register, on the basis of which a certificate is issued, has to proved by admissible evidence and its mere presentation is not sufficient to prove its contents. The person who recorded the entry and the person who gave the details on the basis of which the entry was made may have to be examined. Proof of the source of information of the person who gave the details may also be necessary to prove the entry beyond reasonable doubt.

If it is a private school, section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 29 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam will not apply. But even in such a case, the document containing the entry will have to be proved as per the above-mentioned method so that the entry contained in the document can be regarded as proved beyond reasonable doubt.

OSSIFICATION TEST

When the certificates mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 are not available, the Special Court shall resort to an ossification test or any other latest medical test ordered to be conducted for age determination.

Regarding ossification test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Katara versus State of U.P., has held as under:

The bone ossification test (hereinafter “the ossification test”) is a test that determines age based on the “degree of fusion of bone” by taking the x-ray of a few bones. In simple words, the ossification test or osteogenesis is the process of the bone formation based on the fusion of joints between the birth and age of twenty-five years in an individual. Bone age is an indicator of the skeletal and biological maturity of an individual which assists in the determination of age. The most common method used for the calculation of the bone age is radiography of the hand and wrist until the age of 18 years beyond which the medial age of clavicle is used for bone age calculation till the age of 22 years as the hand and wrist bone radiographs cannot be computed beyond 18 years of age as the elongation of the bone is complete after adolescence. However, it must be noted that the ossification test varies slightly based on individual characteristics, therefore the ossification test though is relevant however it cannot be called solely conclusive.

In Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217] , this Court clarified that the ossification test by the medical officer is to assist the court which falls under the ambit of medical expert opinion i.e. advisory in nature and not binding. However, such an opinion cannot override ocular or documentary evidence, which has been proved to be true and admissible as they constitute “statement of facts”. This Court in Vishnu [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217] placed reliance on Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey [Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 598] , to hold that a medical witness is not a witness of fact therefore the opinion rendered by such a medical expert is merely advisory until accepted by the court, however, once accepted, they become the opinion of the court.

The bone ossification test is not an exact science that can provide us with the exact age of the person. As discussed above, the individual characteristics such as the growth rate of bones and skeletal structures can affect the accuracy of this method. This Court has observed in Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh [Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1194] , and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar [Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 796] , that the ossification test is not conclusive for age determination because it does not reveal the exact age of the person, but the radiological examination leaves a margin of two years on either side of the age range as prescribed by the test irrespective of whether the ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. The courts in India have accepted the fact that after the age of thirty years the ossification test cannot be relied upon for age determination….

BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO WHOM?

It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be given to the accused in a criminal trial. In light of the above principle, the benefit of the margin of error in an ossification test must be given to the accused. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in Deul Kharole versus State of M.P. and others, while giving the benefit of the margin of error to the accused, has held as under:

Therefore, as per the ossification report which was promptly drawn within one month of the incident, since there can be an error of a year or two and when that error is taken into consideration, then victim will be deemed to be an adult, benefit is required to be accrued in favour of the appellant.

PRESUMPTION AS TO AGE, WHETHER PERMISSIBLE?

Another important question is whether a presumption as to age of the victim can be drawn under section 29 of the POCSO Act. Before dealing with this question, the above section is reproduced below:

29. Presumption as to certain offences.—Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.

One of the ingredients of offences under section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act is that the victim must be a child at the date of commission of the offence. Although there is no authority on the point as to whether the presumption under section 29 would include a presumption as to the age of the victim, the language of the section suggests that only the offending sexual act has to be presumed to have been committed and no presumption is to be raised as to the ingredient of the age of the victim. The phrase committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence renders this interpretation rational and logical.

For the sake of argument, if it is assumed that the presumption under section 29 would take within its purview a presumption as to the victim of the offence being a child, even then it is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that for a presumption to operate, foundational facts will have to be proved first by the prosecution. The age of the victim would be a foundational fact, which will have to be proved first. Foundational facts are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Just Rights For Children Alliance and Another versus S. Harish and Others, in which it has been held as under:

…any statutory presumption would operate only after the prosecution first lays the foundational facts necessary for the offences that have been alleged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, in any case, whether a presumption as to the age of the victim is made or not under section 29 of the POCSO Act, the age of the victim under the POCSO Act will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

CONCLUSION

The age of a victim under the POCSO Act has to determined as per the provisions contained in the JJ Act, although as discussed in Part I of the article, the same is equivalent to unnecessarily restricting the criminal court’s power to appropriately determine age after taking into account all the possible relevant evidence by circumscribing it with only the evidence prescribed under the JJ Act. The age of victims under the POCSO Act has to be primarily determined based on the basis of appearance and only in case of doubt age determination process as contemplated in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 has to be undertaken. Once such a process is undertaken, the certificates mentioned therein are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and a roving inquiry is not barred, like in a JJ Act matter. Medical test for age determination is to be taken as the last resort when the certificates mentioned in the above provision are unavailable. Benefit of margin of error is to granted to the accused. The golden principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be borne in mind throughout the process of age determination of victims under the POCSO Act and the court’s should not get swayed by the no roving inquiry principle postulated in JJ Act age determination inquiries.