High Court overturns trial court's decision, emphasizing the need for accurate age determination in sexual offence cases.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed an earlier order by a trial court which had rejected an application to summon the school records of a prosecutrix to ascertain her actual age. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, highlights the importance of accurate age determination in cases involving allegations under the POCSO Act, 2012.
The case in question involves the petitioner, Chetan Mali, who is facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the SC/ST Act, and the POCSO Act. The controversy stemmed from conflicting records regarding the prosecutrix's date of birth, which could significantly impact the trial's outcome.
According to the prosecutrix's Class-IV admission form, her date of birth is listed as February 10, 2001. However, a Secondary School Certificate indicates a different date, February 10, 2000. The petitioner contends that the prosecutrix's Class-I record from Upper Primary Aadarsh Vidhya Mandir, Chhan, shows her birth date as July 5, 1999, making her an adult at the time of the alleged incident.
The High Court, referencing Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasized the court's duty to summon or recall witnesses to ensure a just decision. Justice Dhand noted that discretion under this section must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The court also cited Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates age determination based on school or matriculation certificates when there is doubt.
The ruling directs the trial court to promptly summon the relevant school records and witness, urging an expeditious trial conclusion without unwarranted adjournments. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to uncovering the truth and ensuring justice, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors.
Bottom line:-
Application under Section 311 read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning school records to determine prosecutrix's actual age allowed; discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously to ensure a just decision.
Statutory provision(s): Section 311 Cr.P.C., Section 91 Cr.P.C., Section 94 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Chetan Mali v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929670
