Age Proof Under Section 94(2) JJ Act Mandatory For POCSO Prosecution: Patna High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Acquittal In Sexual Offence Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bihar Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey held that the acquittal of the accused in a case involving allegations of assault and sexual misconduct under the IPC and the POCSO Act required no interference. The Court held that prosecutions under the POCSO framework demand clear proof of the victim’s age, which must be demonstrated through school documentation or medical evaluation in accordance with Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Noting gaps in age verification, inconsistencies in witness accounts, and the absence of material corroboration, the Court found that the prosecution had not met the standard of proof. It therefore upheld the trial court’s view as a legally permissible conclusion and dismissed the appeal.
The matter concerns an appeal filed against the judgment dated 17.06.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge–VI, Patna-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, by which the respondent was acquitted of offences under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the prosecution, the victim had gone to purchase a toothbrush when the respondent, her neighbour, allegedly took her to his house, showed her an obscene video, restrained her when she protested, and threatened to kill her father if she disclosed the incident. The FIR was lodged on 13.11.2018 on the basis of her written application.
The police investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet for the aforementioned offences. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, where charges were framed. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the victim, her family members, a family acquaintance, and the investigating officer. Several documents were exhibited, including the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, FIR, arrest memo, and charge-sheet. A photocopy of the victim’s birth certificate was marked only for identification.
The appellant argued that the victim had supported the prosecution case in material particulars and that lapses in investigation should not invalidate the prosecution version. It was also submitted that the victim was a minor on the date of occurrence. The State contended that the prosecution failed to produce mandatory proof of age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and that there were material inconsistencies in testimonies. It was further submitted that the victim’s deposition contained contradictions when compared with her earlier statements, and that except for the victim, all other witnesses were hearsay. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent. The present appeal challenged that acquittal.
The Court recorded that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a minor, stating that “the prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubts, the fact that the victim was minor as on the date of occurrence.” It discussed the principle laid down in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, noting that Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules applies equally for determining the age of a victim. It observed that “the age of victim must conclusively proved through school record or through medical evidence but in the present case the medical evidence regarding age or any documentary proof has not been proved.”
The Court noted the statutory requirement under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and that the investigating officer produced only a photocopy, while “no effort was taken to prove the age under mandatory requirement.” It recorded that the trial court had found that the birth certificate was not proved.
Regarding delay in filing the FIR, the Court recorded that although the alleged incident occurred on 09.11.2018, the FIR was lodged on 13.11.2018, and “no cogent or convincing explanation has been provided for the said delay.” It noted that the investigating officer admitted she conducted no inquiry regarding the delay.
Addressing testimonial inconsistencies, the Court recorded that “material discrepancies are evident in the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5.” It noted that the claim regarding urination was absent from the victim’s earlier version and that the “alleged display of pornographic video was first introduced during the examination-in-chief… but the said statement did not find any place in earlier statements recorded under Section 161 or 164 of Cr.P.C.”
The Court further stated that “no recovery of mobile phone, alleged video, chocolates or toothbrush has been made,” and the investigating officer admitted that “these critical items were not seized nor was any attempt made to trace them.” It also recorded that except the victim; all witnesses were hearsay and that no independent eyewitness had seen the incident.
In discussing the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, the Court referred to multiple Supreme Court authorities, observing that “if two reasonable conclusions are possible…the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal.” It stated that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal and that such findings can be reversed “only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”
Concluding its assessment, the Court recorded that the trial court “has taken a plausible view based on the evidence available on the record,” and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court directed that “the trial Court has taken a plausible view based on the evidence available on the record” that “the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be held to be bad or perverse. Under such circumstances, no case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out.”
“The present criminal appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.06.2025… is dismissed at the admission stage itself.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Alok, Advocate; Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, Advocate; Ms. Megha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP
Case Title: XXXXXXXXX v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3416 of 2025
Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
