The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order discharging an accused filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) on the basis of the alleged victim’s Aadhaar Card which indicated that she had attained majority.
In the present case, the Aadhaar Card showed the girl’s age as being 21 years old. However, in a police complaint, the girl’s mother had stated that the girl was only 16 years old and thus a minor.
The trial court had relied on the alleged victim’s Date of Birth (DoB) mentioned in the Aadhar card to discharge the accused of POCSO charges.
On appeal, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain of the High Court agreed with the trial court’s decision.
Since the girl’s school record was showing a different DoB, the Court noted that this information was not based on any birth certificate or such documents issued by the municipal or similar authorities.
In the absence of these documents, the trial court “rightly relied upon the Aadhaar Card” to ascertain the age of the victim, said the High Court.
The Court further added, “The Investigating Officer did not collect any birth certificate from the school of the prosecutrix or birth certificate issued by MCD or any other statutory authority or panchayat. The coordinate Bench of this Court in State NCT of Delhi V Umesh … also referred the Aadhaar card to determine the age of the prosecutrix.”
Therefore, the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State government against the order of the trial court.
The prosecution had argued that the trial court had erred by relying upon the age mentioned in the Aadhaar Card, and by not resorting to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
In such cases where a child’s age is doubtful, the Court noted that the JJ Act says that the age can be determined on the basis of a DoB certificate or the matriculation or equivalent certificate.
The birth certificate issued by a municipal body or panchayat body can be relied upon if there is an absence of such records.
In cases where both types of documents are not available, generally, the age has to be determined using an ossification test or a similar medical test.
In the present case, the High Court further noted that the victim was not subjected to the ossification test to determine her approximate age, before confirming the trial court order.
The case presented before the Court involved allegations that the victim girl was kidnapped, raped, and compelled to marry the alleged person. The case was filed on the complaint of the mother of the girl.
In view of this, the trial court had discharged the accused of all charges, after observing that it was ‘clearly apparent that the accused and the prosecutrix were in love’ and since she was a major (21 years of age) as per her Aadhaar Card.
The High Court, thus, upheld this trial court decision.
Advocates Sunita Arora and Krishan Kumar appeared for the respondent (accused). Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the State.
However, the High Courts in India in recent years, have passed contradictory judgments when it comes to relying on the Aadhaar Card as a document of proof to determine the age of a victim as well as an accused.
In April this year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, observed that there is no any provision for taking into consideration the Aadhaar Card as a proof of age for presumption and determination of age.
In another event, last year, the Kerala High Court also held that the Aadhaar Card is not recognized by the JJ Act as a document to determine an accused’s date of birth.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana also made similar observations in some past cases.
News Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-trial-court-aadhar-card-age-pocso-charges