[JJ Act] Document Of Higher Preference For Determining Victim's Age Not 'Gospel Truth' When Contents Are Shaky: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the document of higher preference for determining a victim's age under the Juvenile Justice Act is not to be taken as a “gospel truth” when its contents are shaky and stand falsified.

“There is no absolute rule that the document, having higher preference, for age determination of child under Juvenile Justice Act has to be taken as a gospel truth, even if it is found to be somewhat shaky, suspicious or unconvincing,” a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain said.

“The Court may discard document of higher preference for age determination of child under Juvenile Justice Act if the contents stand falsified,” the Court added.

The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by a man who was convicted under the IPC and POCSO Act for raping a 14 year old minor girl. He also challenged the trial court order sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life.

It was the convict's case that there was no proof with respect to the exact date of birth of the minor. It was contended that since the Trial Court had disbelieved the school record, her age could not have been taken as 14 years, merely on the basis of oral utterances of her parents.

The convict's counsel also submitted that the bone age ossification test report clearly suggested the victim's age as 17-18 years and such aspect was not appropriately appreciated by the Trial Court.

It was contended that wherever the age is determined on bone age ossification report, while considering the upper age given in the reference range, the margin of error of further two years is also required to be applied.

As per the convict, at the alleged date of commission of offence, the victim was a major and thus, the accused could not have been held guilty under POCSO Act.

Granting relief to the convict, the Bench said that the preference of the documents to determine a child's age under the JJ Act has to be in the following order- school record, birth certificate and the bone age ossification test.

“There is no absolute rule that the document, having higher preference, has to be taken as a gospel truth, even if it is found to be somewhat shaky, suspicious or unconvincing,” the Court said.

“Thus perceptibly, any such document has to be of unimpeachable nature. The Court may, however, for reasons to be recorded, discard such document of higher preference, if the contents thereof stand falsified or belied,” it added.

The Bench observed that the date of birth in school record of the victim, which said that she was only ten years of age at the time of the incident, did not synchronize with the age given in the FIR.

It added that if the trial court had rejected and disbelieved the school record of the victim, it should have fallen back on the bone age ossification test report, instead of giving preference to the oral testimony of the victim and her parents.

Further, the Bench said that the victim's testimony that her mouth was tied down and that she was taken in a car or autorickshaw and then in a train in a forceful manner, was not convincing and credible.

It added that if the accused was having any malafide intention, he would not have dared to take her in a public transport under public gaze in a broad daylight.

The Court also noted that when her statement was recorded by an NGO, she revealed that she knew the accused for last one year and used to like him. Observing that it seemed to be a case of elopement and consensual relationship, the Bench said:

“…the cumulative impact of the material brought on record not only indicates 'Miss A' to be major at the relevant time, it also suggests that there was no act of kidnapping or abduction in a forcible manner. In view of our foregoing discussion, it would be highly unsafe to maintain conviction merely on the basis of testimony of Miss A, which does not inspire much confidence.”

Acquitting the man of all the chargers, the Court directed that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required otherwise.

Title: RAJU v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Click here to read order