Baptismal certificate alone cannot prove victim’s age under POCSO: Supreme Court

<p>New Delhi: A baptismal certificate by itself is not valid proof of a victim’s age in cases under the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/pocso-act">Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act</a>, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has ruled, stressing that courts must strictly follow the hierarchy of documents laid down under the Juvenile Justice Act.</p><p>A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria held that, for determining the age of a child victim, preference must first be given to the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate.</p><p>In their absence, a birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat may be considered. Only when these documents are unavailable can the court rely on an ossification test or other medical age-determination methods.</p><p>In an appeal by Pynchemalangaki Bareh, the apex court underscored that statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act cannot override the requirement to establish that the victim was a child when her age is disputed, while ensuring that proven acts of sexual violence do not go unpunished.</p><p>The appeal challenged a Meghalaya High Court judgment that had upheld Bareh’s conviction by a special POCSO court.</p><p>The appellant had been sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 4.</p><p>The case arose from a November 2019 FIR lodged by a woman who alleged that her 13-year-old daughter was raped by Bareh in Mokoidaling, Sutnga village.</p><p>The prosecution relied solely on a baptismal certificate dated September 18, 2016, which recorded the victim’s date of birth as March 5, 2006, along with oral evidence. No church official was examined, and no ossification test was conducted.</p><p>The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution had failed to produce any of the documents prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Consequently, the victim’s minority was not legally established.</p>.Power dues arise only on billing; late demand without continuous arrears barred by law: Supreme Court.<p>“Where the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a child in accordance with Section 94 of the JJ Act, a conviction under Section 3 of the POCSO Act cannot be sustained on the basis of the victim’s asserted age alone,” the bench observed.</p><p>However, the court made it clear that failure to prove minority does not erase the underlying act of rape. Medical evidence, the victim’s testimony and forensic material were found sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault.</p><p>In its September 10, 2026 judgment, the bench, through Justice Mishra, set aside the POCSO conviction and the enhanced punishment under Section 4(2), while substituting it with a conviction under Section 376 of the IPC.</p><p>The bench rejected the argument that the absence of a specific charge under Section 376 IPC vitiated the proceedings.</p><p>The court held that an omission in framing charges does not invalidate a finding or sentence unless it causes a failure of justice. Since the accused had fully defended the factual allegation of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO charge, no prejudice was caused.</p><p>Invoking its powers under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court altered the conviction from the POCSO offence to rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced Bareh to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000. The concurrent conviction under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was upheld.</p>

<p>New Delhi: A baptismal certificate by itself is not valid proof of a victim’s age in cases under the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/pocso-act">Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act</a>, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has ruled, stressing that courts must strictly follow the hierarchy of documents laid down under the Juvenile Justice Act.</p><p>A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria held that, for determining the age of a child victim, preference must first be given to the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate.</p><p>In their absence, a birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat may be considered. Only when these documents are unavailable can the court rely on an ossification test or other medical age-determination methods.</p><p>In an appeal by Pynchemalangaki Bareh, the apex court underscored that statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act cannot override the requirement to establish that the victim was a child when her age is disputed, while ensuring that proven acts of sexual violence do not go unpunished.</p><p>The appeal challenged a Meghalaya High Court judgment that had upheld Bareh’s conviction by a special POCSO court.</p><p>The appellant had been sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 4.</p><p>The case arose from a November 2019 FIR lodged by a woman who alleged that her 13-year-old daughter was raped by Bareh in Mokoidaling, Sutnga village.</p><p>The prosecution relied solely on a baptismal certificate dated September 18, 2016, which recorded the victim’s date of birth as March 5, 2006, along with oral evidence. No church official was examined, and no ossification test was conducted.</p><p>The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution had failed to produce any of the documents prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Consequently, the victim’s minority was not legally established.</p>.Power dues arise only on billing; late demand without continuous arrears barred by law: Supreme Court.<p>“Where the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a child in accordance with Section 94 of the JJ Act, a conviction under Section 3 of the POCSO Act cannot be sustained on the basis of the victim’s asserted age alone,” the bench observed.</p><p>However, the court made it clear that failure to prove minority does not erase the underlying act of rape. Medical evidence, the victim’s testimony and forensic material were found sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault.</p><p>In its September 10, 2026 judgment, the bench, through Justice Mishra, set aside the POCSO conviction and the enhanced punishment under Section 4(2), while substituting it with a conviction under Section 376 of the IPC.</p><p>The bench rejected the argument that the absence of a specific charge under Section 376 IPC vitiated the proceedings.</p><p>The court held that an omission in framing charges does not invalidate a finding or sentence unless it causes a failure of justice. Since the accused had fully defended the factual allegation of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO charge, no prejudice was caused.</p><p>Invoking its powers under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court altered the conviction from the POCSO offence to rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced Bareh to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000. The concurrent conviction under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was upheld.</p>

Powered by Nyaya 247 News