By Tanishka Shah

In the case of Dharmendra vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court examined a bail application under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case revolved around allegations under Sections 376, 506, and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, with the prosecution’s case hinging on the victim’s age. The victim was reported as 15 years old in the FIR and her school records, but inconsistencies emerged in the medical report, which tentatively identified her age as 13. The applicant argued that the medical report was mechanically prepared, lacked reasoning, and failed to meet legal standards, thereby undermining the prosecution’s case.

The Court highlighted that under the POCSO Act, determining a victim’s age is pivotal, as it establishes whether the victim is a minor and consequently, whether the stringent provisions of the Act are applicable. The Court noted that medical reports often fail to adhere to Section 27 of the POCSO Act and Section 164A(2) & (3) of the Cr.P.C., which mandate detailed, scientifically valid, and reasoned conclusions in age determination. In this case, the Court observed that the medical report merely filled in the age without providing the underlying criteria or scientific parameters used to arrive at the conclusion.

Referring to previous rulings in Monish vs. State of U.P. and Aman @ Vansh vs. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that the statutory provisions governing age determination must be read together and implemented comprehensively. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, mandates that age-related documents like school records or birth certificates must be evaluated alongside medical evidence. However, the Court noted that these provisions are often ignored, leading to flawed prosecutions and misuse of the law.

To address these issues, the Court issued detailed directions. It emphasized that medical professionals responsible for preparing age-related reports must undergo proper training to ensure compliance with legal and scientific protocols. Additionally, the Court directed state authorities, including the Principal Secretary of Medical Health and Family Welfare and the Director General of Police, to oversee and ensure adherence to these standards. The Court warned that failure to follow these mandates could lead to miscarriages of justice, as in this case, where an inadequate medical report undermined the prosecution’s position.

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s insistence on accurate and reliable evidence in POCSO cases, especially concerning age determination. It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement and medical professionals about their critical roles in safeguarding the rights of victims while ensuring a fair trial.

Case Title: Dharmendra vs. State of U.P. and Others
Citation: Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:158630

Click to read/ download the judgment