Summary
The Court set aside general directions issued by the Allahabad High Court, while deciding a POCSO bail application, that police must obtain a medical age-determination report of every victim at the start of investigation and that bail courts may test the correctness of age documents. Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to granting or refusing bail, and a victim's age is decided at trial under the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy, where medical tests are a last resort.
Issues
- Whether a High Court exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC can issue general directions mandating medical age determination of victims in all POCSO cases.
- Whether a bail court can entertain a challenge to the correctness of documents relied on to prove the victim's age.
- Whether medical determination of a victim's age can be mandated as a matter of course in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Held that the jurisdiction is limited to deciding whether the accused should be released pending trial or remain in custody; it does not authorise general directions to investigating agencies or a mini trial on the victim's age. (¶¶ 11.1, 11.2, 11.5, 15.3, 18)
- Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015Applied as the procedure for determining a victim's age, with its hierarchy of school or matriculation certificate, then municipal or panchayat birth certificate, and only in their absence a medical test; directions mandating medical age determination as a matter of course were held contrary to it. (¶¶ 8.3, 14.6, 14.7, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 164A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Held, read with Section 27 POCSO Act, not to support a mandate that a medical age-determination report be drawn up in every POCSO case, given the Section 94 JJ Act scheme. (¶¶ 8.2, 17, 18)
- Section 27, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Considered alongside Section 164A CrPC; it governs medical examination of a child victim but does not override the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy for determining age. (¶¶ 8.1, 17, 18)
- Section 2(d) and Section 34, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012A victim being a child under eighteen is the foundation for applying the Act; the Act prescribes no method of age determination, so the question is decided by the court under the Section 94 JJ Act procedure. (¶¶ 13.1, 14.6, 14.8)
Held
- Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, whether of the Sessions Court or the High Court, is limited to deciding whether the accused should be released pending trial or remain in custody; directions to investigating authorities and orders for age examination of the victim in a bail application were beyond that jurisdiction. (¶¶ 11.2, 11.5, 18)
- Although the High Court is a constitutional court, it was exercising statutory power under Section 439; constitutional and statutory powers are distinct, and constitutional status cannot be used to enlarge a statutory jurisdiction beyond what the statute envisages. (¶¶ 11.3, 11.4, 18)
- The POCSO Act does not prescribe how the victim's age is to be determined; the Section 94 JJ Act procedure applies, and in the absence of a JJB-like body for victims the question is determined by the court. The defence may challenge the age documents, whose presumption is rebuttable, when the court undertakes that determination. (¶¶ 13.1, 14.6, 14.7)
- Since the victim's age is the foundation of a POCSO trial, the accused would ordinarily challenge it at the inception of trial, and it must be settled before the trial proceeds; unlike an accused's juvenility claim, the victim's age cannot be reopened at any stage, as that could vitiate the trial. (¶¶ 14.8, 14.9)
- Testing the documents listed in Section 94 may require evidence and witnesses and can only be done by the trial court; a bail court may examine the age documents to form a prima facie view but cannot decide their correctness, as that would amount to an impermissible mini trial. (¶¶ 14.10, 15, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 16, 18)
- Under Section 94 JJ Act, the prescribed documents are used to determine age and medical evidence is resorted to only in their absence; a medical determination of a victim's age cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, much less mandated, and the High Court's direction to that effect was set aside. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Noting repeated judicial notice of misuse of the POCSO Act, including misstatement of victims' age and its use against adolescent relationships, the Court stressed the Bar's responsibility to counsel restraint and directed that the judgment be sent to the Union Law Secretary to consider steps such as a 'Romeo-Juliet' exception for genuine adolescent relationships and a mechanism to prosecute those who misuse such laws. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's directions set aside, with the same effect on its two earlier decisions on which they rested; bail granted to the respondent and in those cases left undisturbed; the judgment to operate prospectively so as not to affect bail already secured under that procedure; copies to the Allahabad High Court Registrar General and the Union Law Secretary.