Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant recent order, the Allahabad High Court addressed a crucial issue surrounding the determination of a victim's age in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Court observed that the determination of age, a pivotal factor in many cases, is often challenged by the accused, leading to misuse of the Act's provisions.

The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, and Director General, Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh to ensure that medical specialists tasked with determining the age of the victims in cases under the POCSO Act are properly trained and their medical reports are drawn up after giving reasons for the conclusions consistent with the mandate of Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of the CrPC.

Court stressed that the medical reports determining the victim's age have to record the scientific criteria and the medical protocols on which the opinion regarding the age is based.

Court said that it was noticed in a number of cases that the medical report mechanically recorded the age of the victim.

"The medical reports which do not give reasons in support of conclusions with respect to the victim’s age are vitiated, being in contravention of Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of the CrPC," the high court held. 

Court pointed out that it had handed down the directions to the police authorities in Aman @ Vansh vs State of UP (2024) to ensure strict compliance with Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of CrPC.

The competent medical authorities of the State too are liable to implement the mandate of Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of CrPC by giving reasoned medical reports for age determination of victims, court asserted. 

Further, court highlighted that the statutory scheme of determination of the age of the victims in POCSO Act offences is a composite one and involves an interplay of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and also Section 27 of POCSO Act read with Section 164A(2)(3) of CrPC.

It pointed out that although the procedure for determination of a victim's age provided in Section 94 of the JJ Act does not apply to bail applications under the POCSO Act, the documents referenced therein are crucial for consideration (Monish vs State of UP, 2024).

"The criteria and the documents referenced in all the aforesaid provisions are liable to be considered to determine the age of the victim while deciding the bail applications under the POCSO Act," court said. 

The order was passed in a bail application filed by one Dharmendra, accused of offences under Sections 376, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The defense argued that the victim's age had been misrepresented as 15 years to implicate Dharmendra under the POCSO Act. The court examined various prosecution documents, including the victim's school records, which listed her age as 15, and a medical report that stated she was 13. However, the court noted that the medical report lacked the necessary scientific backing, stating it was drawn up mechanically without following proper medical protocols.

Court underscored that in POCSO cases, Section 27 of the POCSO Act and Section 164A of the CrPC require medical reports to be based on scientific criteria and to include detailed reasoning, particularly regarding the victim's age, however, in the present case, the medical report failed to meet these standards and lacked any explanation of how the age was determined.

Furthermore, court criticized the frequent failure of law enforcement and medical authorities to adhere to these statutory mandates, pointing out that many medical reports are mechanically generated without following the correct procedures.

Ultimately, court granted bail to the accused while reiterating that the age of the victim will be conclusively determined only during the trial.

Case Title: Dharmendra Vs. State Of Up And 3 Others