#age determination

The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a POCSO accused after the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority through statutory records or an ossification test, reiterating that school registers and similar documents are primary proof of age. The court further clarified that while DNA evidence may confirm sexual intercourse, it cannot substitute for proof of lack of consent to establish rape.

Gujarat HC upholds acquittal: birth certificate without source verification cannot prove minority, making POCSO presumption inapplicable. Victim's conduct - no outcry, voluntary travel, non-disclosure - negated kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. Proven age is a jurisdictional prerequisite for POCSO; voluntary accompaniment by a minor defeats kidnapping charges.

HP HC held that under BNSS §432, prosecution may submit a matriculation certificate as additional evidence to prove a victim's age in a POCSO case at the appellate stage if it supports the case. This clarifies age-proof evidence rules in POCSO trials.

The Gauhati High Court held that an unexamined school admission register cannot establish a victim’s minority and that ossification test results must be interpreted with a two-year margin in favour of the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, clarifying the evidentiary burden for age proof in POCSO prosecutions.

The Supreme Court set aside the POCSO conviction for lack of proof of the victim's minority via JJ Act documents or ossification test. It upheld the accused's IPC 376 rape conviction, confirming the offence was proved despite the POCSO charge failing.

Madhya Pradesh High Court suspends a 20-year sentence under the POCSO Act, ruling that contradictions in victim's age proof and reliance solely on DNA evidence without corroboration create reasonable doubt. The decision underscores the need for strict adherence to evidentiary standards in child sexual abuse cases.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in a POCSO case, emphasizing the importance of accurate age determination before filing charges under the POCSO Act.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in POCSO case, emphasizing victim's free will statement and lack of radiological age proof, despite minor pregnancy.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in a POCSO case, emphasizing material contradictions in victim statements and lack of proper age determination evidence.

Rajasthan High Court rules that trial courts must prioritize and conclusively determine a victim's age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act before proceeding with POCSO cases, ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards. The directive mandates recording the victim's statement within 30 days, failing which legal measures must be employed to secure attendance.

When the Juvenile Justice Board determines a person is above 16 years, the law mandates trial as an adult in the Children's Court under the POCSO Act - proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the accused claims juvenile status. This ruling closes a procedural loophole and reinforces that age determination by the JJB is final for forum allocation, binding all subsequent courts.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that when medical evidence establishes an individual as a major, it supersedes conflicting documentary proof in habeas corpus proceedings, safeguarding personal liberty under Article 21. This reinforces that consent and bodily autonomy prevail over bureaucratic records in cases involving young adults, setting a critical precedent for reproductive and relational freedom.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that in POCSO cases, age determination must follow the statutory hierarchy under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, prioritizing school records over Panchayat certificates. This sets a binding standard for trial courts across India, ensuring that convictions rest on reliable, legally recognized evidence of minority - not informal documentation.

Gauhati High Court upholds conviction under POCSO Act, ruling that a school certificate holds primacy over medical evidence for age determination, as prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The decision reinforces the statutory hierarchy of evidence, impacting prosecutions involving minors where age is disputed.

Delhi High Court rules that in cases under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, a minor's birth certificate is definitive proof of age, overriding medical opinion. The court reaffirms that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant, upholding conviction while setting aside kidnapping charges due to voluntary association.