Can an Aadhaar Card be Used to Verify Age Under the POCSO Act if There is Any Doubt?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7964/c7964b613c363e458ed0910fda97420561ab709b" alt="Aadhar-address-update"
Image Source: IndianKhabri
The Delhi High Court has upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss proceedings under the POCSO Act against an accused after using the victim’s Aadhaar card to determine age. The appeal against the order was dismissed by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain’s single-judge panel, who noted that the prosecutrix’s age as it appeared in her school records was not supported by any birth certificate.
Brief facts of the case: According to the complainant, her daughter, who was thought to be around 16 years old, was reported missing on September 9, 2015, and it looked like she had left the house without telling anyone else. The complainant believed the respondent was responsible for kidnapping her daughter. Following filing an FIR, the accused was charged with offenses under sections 363 of the IPC, 366 of the POCSO Act of 2012, 366 of the IPC, and 376 of the IPC.
Investigations revealed that she married the respondent on September 12, 2015, and had also declined to get a physical. She also made a statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which she claimed that she had left the respondent of her own free will and had developed a relationship with the respondent following their marriage. She also mentioned that she was born in 1994 and that she was around 21 years old.
The respondent had been absolved of the charges by the Trial Court. Thus, the current appeal.
Contention of the parties: In an appearance on behalf of the petitioner/State, the Additional Public Prosecutor claimed that the Trial Court erred by relying on the Aadhaar Card rather than on section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Citing Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 Latest Caselaw 422 SC, he argued that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time the offense was committed based on the records gathered during the investigation from the relevant school. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent claimed that the Trial Court had correctly relied on the Aadhaar Card and that the prosecutrix’s date of birth was 01.01.1994 according to the Aadhaar Card. He further claimed that the age of the prosecutrix as it appeared in the school record was not based on any birth certificate issued by the MCD or any other statutory authority, citing P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 2023 Latest Caselaw 571 SC.
Observation of the High Court: The Court emphasized at the outset that wherever a disagreement over a person’s age arises in the context of that person being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts must turn to the procedures outlined in Section 94 of the JJ Act. Thus, it listed the three papers that must be taken into account in the following sequence under the Juvenile Justice Act:
- the birth certificate from the school, or, in the absence of either, the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the relevant examination Board;
- a birth certificate issued by a panchayat, a corporation, or a municipal authority;
- Age shall be established by an ossification test or any other most recent medical age determination test performed on the Committee’s or the Board’s directions, and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above.
The court noted that, in accordance with its decision in State NCT of Delhi V. Umesh, the Investigating Officer in the current case also referred to the prosecutrix’s Aadhaar card to ascertain her age rather than obtaining a birth certificate from her school, the MCD or any other statutory body or panchayat.
The Trial Court had correctly noted that the prosecutrix’s date of birth as it appeared in the school record was not based on a birth certificate issued by the MCD or any other statutory authority, and in the absence of these documents, the Trial Court had correctly relied on the Aadhaar card to determine the prosecutrix’s age in accordance with section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reflects the date of birth mentioned in her Aadhaar card. This decision aligns with established legal procedure, as outlined in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, when there is a lack of official documentation. Therefore, the Trial Court’s reliance on the Aadhaar card for age verification was in accordance with the appropriate legal framework.
The court stated that the impugn order did not call for any intervention and mentioned that the prosecutrix was not put through the ossification test to identify her approximate age.
Team Profile
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98a64/98a641218da5fefd15a4e757dc199b61b22bbccf" alt="Pragati Sengar"
Latest entries
Article30 September 2023Can RPF Personnel Be Treated As ‘Workman’ For Compensation Purposes? SC Decides
English30 September 2023High Court Expounds: The Statement of an Eyewitness Must Be Free from Blemish and Devoid of Any Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Loopholes
News29 September 2023Radhasoami Satsang Bhawan: The High Court Directs to Maintain the Status Quo On Land in Agra until Oct 5
News28 September 2023Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court