Age Determination in the POCSO Act
Courts determine the age of a victim in a POCSO case primarily by following the hierarchy under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015, prioritising documentary evidence over medical tests to establish if the victim was under 18 years. The hierarchy is: school records, matriculation certificates, birth certificates issued by local authorities, and, finally, medical examinations.
Hierarchy of Evidence in POCSO Age Determination
- School or Matriculation Certificate: The primary evidence is the date of birth (DOB) recorded in the first school attended or the matriculation certificate. CaseMine says it’s crucial to verify original documents and summon record-keepers.
- Birth Certificate: If school records are unavailable, the court relies on a birth certificate issued by a municipal corporation or panchayat.
- Medical Examination (Ossification Test): If, and only if, the above documents are not available or are suspected of being fabricated, the court orders a medical examination (bone ossification test) to estimate the age.
- Expert Testimony: The report, often created by a medical board, takes into account radiological findings to provide an age range.
Key Principles and Judicial Guidelines
- Finality of Records: Courts prioritise school records over other documents because they are considered more consistent and reliable in the ordinary course of life.
- Last Resort: Medical tests are treated as a last resort because they offer an age range rather than a precise date, often allowing a margin of error of 1 year.
- Burden of Proof: While the prosecution provides documents, the accused can challenge their authenticity. However, the onus is on the accused to prove the victim is not a child once initial evidence suggests otherwise, as per Section 29 POCSO (presumption of guilt).
- Age of Appearance: In the absence of all documentary evidence, the court may make a reasonable assessment of the victim’s age based on their physical appearance.
Note: The Supreme Court has clarified that age determination is crucial for establishing the court’s jurisdiction and the nature of the trial and cannot be treated as a mere formality.
Share this Post
