Court Emphasizes Foundational Significance of Victim's Age in Sexual Offence Trials, Directs Educational Institution to Submit Class I-VI Records for Fair Trial
Bikaner, Rajasthan - In a significant ruling delivered on September 28, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Bajrang Kumar, challenging the dismissal of his application seeking production of the prosecutrix's earlier educational records. The case involves serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioner, Bajrang Kumar, was charged with offences including criminal trespass (Section 450 IPC), wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC), and sexual assault (Section 376D IPC), besides offences under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act. During the trial, the prosecutrix stated she had studied from Class I to VI at a Government Girls School in Nuwa, District Churu, and that her educational documents were with her.
Seeking to verify the prosecutrix's age-a pivotal factor determining the applicability of the POCSO Act and the legal significance of consent under Section 376 IPC-the defence filed an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) requesting the production of her earlier school records. The trial court rejected the application on the assumption that these documents would only include marksheets and academic records with no bearing on age determination.
The High Court set aside this decision, emphasizing that the prosecutrix's age is a foundational fact in cases involving sexual offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The Court held that the determination of whether the victim was a "child" under the POCSO Act is critical since the Act's applicability depends on this age threshold of 18 years.
The Court clarified that the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon documents requires a judicial assessment of whether the documents have a reasonable nexus with a material fact in the trial. It stressed that the trial court should not have dismissed the application based on speculative assumptions about the content or evidentiary value of the documents without first producing and examining them.
Recognizing the prosecutrix's disclosure about her schooling and possession of related documents, the Court directed the concerned educational institution to produce all relevant records from Class I to VI, including admission registers, date-of-birth entries, marksheets, and other contemporaneous documents. These would assist the court in fairly determining the prosecutrix's age at the time of the alleged offence.
The High Court further noted that producing these documents does not imply any opinion on their authenticity or evidentiary worth, which would be assessed by the trial court after due process. This ruling reinforces the accused's right to a fair trial by allowing him to test the foundational facts of the prosecution's case.
This judgment sets an important precedent on how courts must handle requests for production of documents relevant to age determination in POCSO cases, ensuring that foundational issues are not summarily dismissed at the threshold.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 91 POCSO prosecution - Age of prosecutrix is a foundational fact where applicability of POCSO Act and legal significance of consent under Section 376 IPC depend upon it - Earlier school records disclosed by prosecutrix herself cannot be refused to be summoned on speculative assessment of their contents - Relevance is to be seen at stage of production, while evidentiary value is to be assessed later - Accused is entitled to fair opportunity to test prosecution case on age.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 91, Sections 397, 401; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 342, 376, 376D, 450; Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 5(G), 6; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(2)(5)
Bajrang Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992051
