Court permits re-examination and production of victim's Matriculation Certificate under BNSS Section 432 to rectify investigation lapse, emphasizing the importance of just decision and adherence to Juvenile Justice Act guidelines.
In a significant ruling dated September 15, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) in the case of Kulwinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh permitted the State to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage to prove the date of birth of the minor victim. The application was filed under Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to the earlier Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The case arose from a criminal appeal against the conviction of Kulwinder Singh under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 354A, 354D, 376, and 506, and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for the offence under the POCSO Act, along with additional terms and fines for other offences.
During the appellate proceedings, it emerged that the prosecution had not produced the victim's Matriculation Certificate-a crucial document under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015-to conclusively prove the victim's age at the time of the incident. Although the prosecution had presented a Date of Birth certificate issued by the local Gram Panchayat registrar and a Pariwar Register entry, the absence of the school record was identified as a significant irregularity.
The State sought permission to produce the Matriculation Certificate and re-examine the victim and school authorities to substantiate the victim's age properly. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, allowed the application, holding that:
1. The power under Section 432 BNSS to allow additional evidence should be exercised judiciously and only when essential to a just decision.
2. The omission to produce the Matriculation Certificate was an inadvertent mistake or ignorance by the Investigating Officer and not a deliberate act to withhold evidence.
3. Allowing additional evidence would not prejudice the accused, as the prosecution's case regarding the victim's date of birth remained consistent.
4. The accused would have full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the newly produced evidence, ensuring fair trial principles are upheld.
5. The court emphasized that additional evidence must not be allowed as a disguise for retrial or to change the nature of the case.
The Court further directed the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to issue detailed guidelines to all investigating officers to ensure strict compliance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. These guidelines must mandate collection of preferential evidence of age proof, including school records, birth certificates, ossification tests, and other corroborative documents to prevent lapses that could adversely impact prosecution cases.
The Court's order underscores the judiciary's proactive role in preventing failure of justice due to procedural irregularities and ensuring that the rights and protection of minor victims under laws like the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act are upheld effectively.
Bottom Line:
Provisions under Section 432 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (old Section 391 Cr.P.C.) permit appellate courts to allow additional evidence if deemed essential for the just decision of a case. This power should be exercised judiciously, especially to rectify irregularities without causing prejudice to the accused or changing the nature of the case.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 432 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (old Section 391 Cr.P.C.), Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Sections 354A, 354D, 376, 506 IPC, Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012
Kulwinder Singh v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978760
