Allahabad High Court Highlights Inaccuracies in Medical Reports on POCSO Victims Age

The Court noted that in several cases, the medical report mechanically records the age of the victim without giving any reasons to support such findings.

The Allahabad High Court recently told the Uttar Pradesh government to make sure that doctors determining the age of victims in POCSO Act cases are properly trained [Dharmendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others].

Justice Ajay Bhanot issued the order after noting that in many POCSO cases, medical reports often record the victim’s age without providing reasons to support the findings.

The Court pointed out that these routine reports violate the requirements of Section 27 [medical examination of a minor victim of sexual assault] of the POCSO Act, along with Section 164A(2)(3) [medical examination of a rape victim] of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

“The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh and Director General, Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh, shall ensure that the medical specialists who determine the age of the victims/medical reports under the POCSO Act are properly trained and the said medical reports are drawn up after giving reasons for the conclusions consistent with the mandate of Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of the Cr.P.C,” the Court proceeded to order in its September 27 judgment.

The POCSO Act mandates severe punishments for the sexual assault of minors. As a result, determining whether the victim was a minor or an adult at the time of the crime is crucial in POCSO cases.

The Court’s attention was brought to deficiencies in medical reports used to establish the victim’s age during a hearing on a bail application for an individual accused in a POCSO case.

The man had been accused of raping a 15-year-old girl. The accused, however, maintained that the girl was older than 15 years and that her parents had incorrectly recorded her age in her school records.

He further claimed that their relationship was consensual and that they had been briefly married for about five months, but the victim left after they grew apart.

In her police statement, the victim said she was 15 years old. However, the accused argued that her age had been misreported to falsely implicate him in a POCSO case.

The Court ultimately granted bail to the accused, pointing out significant inconsistencies regarding the victim’s age. While the accused claimed she was an adult, her school records indicated she was 15, and a medical report suggested she was 13.

The Court also expressed concern over the accused’s argument that the medical report was prepared mechanically, without supporting reasons, and concluded that such a report was invalid.

“In the instant case the age column has been simply filled, and the reasons for the conclusion regarding age is absent. The report is invalid. Reasons and description of the medical parameters or scientific criteria adopted to determine the age of the victim are the mandatory prerequisites of a valid medical report. The Court is noticing that in a number of cases the medical report mechanically records the age of the victim,” it observed.

The Court emphasised that in medical reports, it is crucial to record the reasons supporting the findings on a victim’s age.

“Reasons and description of the medical parameters or scientific criteria adopted to determine the age of the victim are the mandatory prerequisites of a valid medical report,” it said.