Section 94 Juvenile Justice Act | School Certificate Overrides Medical Evidence for Age Determination Under POCSO : Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court recently affirmed a conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, reinforcing the legal principle that a school certificate is the primary document for determining a victim's age, overriding medical evidence. The judgment clarifies the hierarchy of evidence under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, providing crucial guidance for prosecutors and defense counsel in similar cases involving minors.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Md. Zahangir Alam, was convicted by the Special Judge, Chirang, in Special POCSO Case No. 09/2024 for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim, a minor girl aged 17 years, alleged that the appellant, under the alias Ayan @ Jain, enticed her on the pretext of love, took her to various locations, and committed sexual assault on two occasions: 27.05.2023 and 14.07.2023. The appellant also allegedly recorded the acts and circulated the victim’s nude images on social media, leading to the registration of FIR No. 09/2024 under Sections 363/376/294/501 IPC, Sections 4/6/14 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

Key Facts

• The victim, aged 17 years, met the appellant in February 2023 while he was working in her village for a water pipeline project.
• On 27.05.2023, the appellant took the victim to Barpeta Road, where he committed sexual intercourse with her at a hotel.
• On 14.07.2023, the appellant again induced the victim to accompany him to a location near Barpeta, where he repeated the act and recorded it on his mobile phone.
• The appellant threatened to upload the victim’s nude images on social media if she resisted further advances.
• The images were subsequently circulated, leading to the victim’s mother lodging an FIR on 27.01.2024.
• The victim’s school certificate (MO-1) indicated her date of birth as 20.03.2007, confirming her status as a minor at the time of the offences.

Procedural History

• 27.01.2024: FIR registered at Kajalgaon Police Station under relevant provisions of IPC, POCSO Act, and IT Act.
• Investigation: Charge sheet filed after completion of investigation, and charges framed under Sections 4/6/14 of the POCSO Act, Sections 363/376 IPC, and Section 67 of the IT Act.
• Trial: The appellant pleaded not guilty. 12 prosecution witnesses were examined, including the victim (PW1), her mother (PW2), and the Investigating Officer (PW14). No defense evidence was adduced.
• 25.02.2025: Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (with default imprisonment of 2 years). For Section 363 IPC, he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (with default imprisonment of 6 months).
• Appeal: The appellant filed Crl.A./162/2025 before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the conviction on grounds of consensual relationship and victim’s age.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal, arguing that:

• The relationship was consensual.
• The victim was above 18 years of age based on medical evidence.
• The prosecution’s case was contradictory, particularly regarding the place of occurrence.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was:

Whether a school certificate or medical evidence should prevail for determining the age of a victim under the POCSO Act, and whether the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• Consensual Relationship: The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and that the victim was above 18 years of age based on medical evidence.
• Medical Evidence: Relied on the testimony of PW10 (Dr. Kukumoni Basumatary), who estimated the victim’s age as 19-21 years based on an X-ray report.
• Contradictions in Prosecution Case: Highlighted inconsistencies in the Investigating Officer’s (PW14) evidence, particularly the shift in the alleged place of occurrence from Barpeta Road to Guwahati, which was not mentioned by the victim.
• Precedent: Cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 40) to argue that medical evidence should prevail over documentary evidence.

For the Respondent/State

• School Certificate as Primary Evidence: Contended that the school certificate (MO-1), showing the victim’s date of birth as 20.03.2007, was conclusive proof of her age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• Victim’s Minority: Emphasized that the victim was below 17 years of age at the time of the offences, rendering her consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act.
• Sterling Witness: Argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent and uncontradicted, making her a sterling witness.
• Precedent: Relied on P. Yuvaprakash v. State ((2024) 17 SCC 684) to assert that school certificates take precedence over medical evidence for age determination.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles:

1. Victim’s Testimony: The Court noted that the victim’s (PW1) testimony was consistent and uncontradicted regarding the appellant’s acts on 27.05.2023 and 14.07.2023. The defense failed to impeach her credibility during cross-examination, particularly with reference to her previous statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C..

2. Age Determination: The Court relied on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which establishes a hierarchy of evidence for age determination:

   • First Preference: School certificate or matriculation certificate.
   • Second Preference: Birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat.
   • Third Preference: Medical evidence (ossification test or other age determination tests).

   The Court held that since the school certificate (MO-1) was undisputed and showed the victim’s date of birth as 20.03.2007, medical evidence was irrelevant. The victim was a minor at the time of the offences, and her consent was immaterial under the POCSO Act.

   "Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the examination board concerned has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through 'an ossification test' or 'any other latest medical age determination test'."

3. Precedent Analysis: The Court distinguished the appellant’s reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another, noting that the decision does not prioritize medical evidence over school certificates. Instead, it merely states that medical evidence should not be resorted to as a matter of course.

4. Investigating Officer’s Evidence: The Court dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding the shift in the place of occurrence, noting that:

   • The victim’s testimony did not mention Guwahati.
   • The Investigating Officer’s (PW14) statement about Guwahati was not put to the victim during cross-examination, rendering it inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

5. Burden of Proof: The Court observed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and resort to Section 29 of the POCSO Act (presumption of guilt) was unnecessary, though the Trial Court had relied on it.

The Verdict

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence. The appellant’s conviction under:

• Section 6 of the POCSO Act stands, with rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (default imprisonment of 2 years).
• Section 363 IPC stands, with imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (default imprisonment of 6 months).

The Court directed the Trial Court Record (TCR) to be sent back for compliance.

What This Means For Similar Cases

School Certificate is Conclusive for Age Determination

• Practitioners must prioritize school certificates or matriculation certificates as the primary evidence for age determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• Medical evidence, including ossification tests, cannot override documentary evidence unless the latter is unavailable or disputed.
• Courts are likely to reject arguments based on medical evidence if a valid school certificate is on record.

Prosecution Must Ensure Consistency in Evidence

• Investigating Officers must ensure that all material facts (e.g., place of occurrence) are corroborated by the victim’s testimony and recorded in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
• Defense counsel should rigorously cross-examine prosecution witnesses on omissions or contradictions in their statements, particularly under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
• Prosecutors must ensure that key documents (e.g., school certificates) are properly exhibited and proved to avoid challenges to their authenticity.

Consent is Irrelevant for Minors Under POCSO Act

• Section 4 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act criminalize sexual acts with minors regardless of consent.
• Defense arguments of consensual relationships will fail if the victim’s minority is established through documentary evidence.
• Victim’s testimony will be given significant weight if it is consistent and uncontradicted, even in the absence of corroborative evidence.