The Allahabad High Court had recently refused to interfere with the charge sheet in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) while stating that as per her school leaving certificate, the victim was a minor at the time of the incident .
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta rejected the argument raised by the defense counsel that the victim’s birth certificate stated a different date of birth (DOB) than the victim’s.
The court said, “…as per the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, once the school certificate is obtained, other certificates such as the birth certificate issued by the municipal corporation will become secondary evidence”.
The court further pointed out that the victim’s birth registration date was a date after the incident, which meant that the defendant deliberately obtained the birth certificate “to evade the sanction of the law.”
“The birth certificate obtained by the applicant in the light of this Court’s considerations is therefore of little significance at this stage,” the court held.
The high court was dealing with an application filed by Puspendra Singh under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking directions to quash the charges in the case registered against him under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
Brief facts are that the victim’s father filed an FIR accusing Puspendra Singh of abducting his minor daughter from a tube well. An investigation following the FIR led to the victim’s recovery. In her statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the victim stated that she was 17 years old and studying up to Class VIII. She also claimed to be willing to accompany the defendant. She said they traveled to Mathura and Allahabad, had a court marriage there and now live together as a married couple. She is also pregnant.
In her statement, the victim stated that she would like to live with the defendant.
During her physical examination, based on X-rays, she was approximately 20 years old. During her medical examination, she stated that her father often yelled at her, so she ran away with the defendant.
However, after due investigation, it was found that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident and charges were filed against the accused under the provisions of IPC and POCSO Act. The defendant challenged this and filed a lawsuit in the High Court.
The defendant’s lawyer argued that the victim was a major and followed the defendant voluntarily, so the defendant was not guilty of any criminal conduct. He relied on the victim’s birth certificate.
Instead, the victim’s father’s attorney documented the victim’s diploma proving she was a minor.
The single-judge bench noted that the Supreme Court as well as different High Courts have held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, can also be safely applied for determining the age of the victims of crimes, particularly those relating to sexual offences, which are covered by the POCSO Act and IPC regulations.
The court cited Section 94 of the JJ Act, which provides for “presumption and determination of the age of a juvenile”.
While emphasizing that the victim’s diploma clearly stated that she was a minor at the time of the incident, the court found that the request for an ossification test in this case was unfounded.
The court held that when exercising the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the key consideration is whether there is a prima facie case. In the present case, the court held that since the victim was a minor, her alleged consent was immaterial under the POCSO Act and Section 375 IPC.
Therefore, the court held that the defendant’s alleged crime had been established. The court therefore dismissed the application and refused to withdraw the charges.
Follow us on Google news ,Twitter , and Join Whatsapp Group of thelocalreport.in
