The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that school admission records serve as conclusive proof of a victim's age in POCSO cases, rendering medical ossification tests unnecessary when such documents are available and credible. This ruling reinforces the statutory hierarchy of evidence under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, and significantly curtails defense strategies relying on delayed or unperformed medical age assessments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ayyaz Mohammad, was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO) for multiple offenses including Section 376(2)(n) and Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, for the rape of a minor girl on 25 June 2019. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forcibly took the prosecutrix from a public area during a wedding procession, confined her in his house, and sexually assaulted her over multiple days.
Procedural History
- 25 June 2019: Prosecutrix went missing after leaving home to view a baraat.
- 27 June 2019: Prosecutrix recovered from appellant’s residence; FIR registered under Section 363 IPC.
- 28 June 2019: Medical examination ordered; DNA samples collected.
- 2020: Charge-sheet filed under IPC and POCSO provisions.
- 6 September 2022: Special Judge convicted appellant on all counts; acquitted his father.
- 2022: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging conviction.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the victim’s age was not conclusively established. He contended that the absence of an ossification test rendered the age determination unreliable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the age of a POCSO victim can be conclusively determined solely on school admission records, and whether failure to conduct an ossification test - despite a medical recommendation - invalidates the prosecution’s case.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s failure to conduct an ossification test, despite Dr. Aakriti Jaiswal’s recommendation, constituted a serious procedural lapse under Sunil v. State of Haryana. He contended that the school records from Navayug School (date of birth: 04.07.2006) were based on estimated information provided by the father and lacked formal authentication. He further relied on the conflicting entry in the Government Primary School register (date of birth: 12.09.2002), which, if accepted, would place the victim above 16 years at the time of the incident, thereby excluding applicability of POCSO.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the school records from Navayug Bal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya were duly maintained, corroborated by the Headmaster (PW-7), and supported by consistent testimonies of the victim, her parents, and the Investigating Officer. The prosecution emphasized that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 mandate a hierarchy of evidence, and school records are superior to medical opinion. The DNA match and recovery from the accused’s residence further corroborated the prosecution’s narrative.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the statutory framework under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which establishes a clear hierarchy for age determination: (i) matriculation certificate, (ii) school admission record, (iii) birth certificate, and (iv) medical opinion. The Court held that the school record from Navayug School, which recorded the victim’s date of birth as 04.07.2006, was admissible and reliable because it was entered at the time of admission with the father’s input and maintained in the official scholar register.
"In the scheme of Rule 12(3), the date of birth entered in the school first attended is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon."
The Court distinguished Sunil v. State of Haryana, noting that the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh had explicitly held that ossification tests are only a last resort when documentary evidence is absent. The Court emphasized: "We are not laying down as a rule that all these tests must be conducted in all cases."
The Court further invalidated the defense’s reliance on the Government Primary School register (Ex. D-1), noting it was unauthenticated, lacked signatures, contained unexplained corrections, and was not certified by any competent authority. The Court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence, including the DNA match, recovery from the accused’s house, and consistent victim testimony, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction, holding that the school admission record conclusively established the victim’s age as below 18 years, and the failure to conduct an ossification test did not affect the prosecution’s case. The Court affirmed that documentary evidence under Rule 12(3) overrides medical opinion in POCSO cases.
What This Means For Similar Cases
School Records Are Conclusive Proof
- Practitioners must prioritize obtaining and authenticating school admission records in all POCSO cases.
- Defense challenges based on alleged inaccuracies in school records must overcome the statutory presumption of finality under Rule 12(3).
- Courts will not permit speculative age arguments based on unverified or later entries in unrelated registers.
Ossification Test Is Not Mandatory
- Medical recommendation for ossification does not create a legal obligation to perform it.
- Prosecution need not delay proceedings or risk acquittal due to non-conduct of ossification tests if school or birth certificates exist.
- Defense arguments invoking Sunil v. State of Haryana are now legally untenable in cases where Rule 12(3) documents are available.
Documentary Evidence Trumps Oral Contradictions
- Inconsistencies in parental testimony regarding exact birth dates are immaterial if the school record is consistent and properly maintained.
- Courts will not allow defense to exploit minor discrepancies (e.g., two-day differences) to discredit conclusive documentary evidence.
- The burden shifts to the defense to prove that the school record is fabricated or unreliable - not merely that another record exists.
