Kuldeep Singh Sengar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of Decision: 22 April, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 29 April, 2026
+ CRL.A. 53/2020
KULDEEP SINGH SENGAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
S.P.M. Tripathi, Ms. Punya Rekha
Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N., Mr.
Aman Akhtar, Ms. Aishwarya Singh,
Mr. Rahul Poonia, Ms. Vasundhara
Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Mandal, Mr.
Aman Akhtar and Ms. Shambhavi
Singh, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI
with Mr. Anurag Modi, Ms. Ananya
Shamshery, Mr. Mayank Bawa, Ms.
Riddhi Grover, Advs. & Mr. Arijit
Sinha, IO, CBI.
Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. Sanawar,
Mr. Kshtij Singh, Mr. Sikander, Advs.
for Complainant Ms. Urvi Mohan,
Advocate for DCW
Arijit Sinha IO, CBI
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.A. 21475/2025
2. This application has been filed by the victim seeking the following
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 1 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

prayers:
“(a) Allow the present application and take on
record the documents annexed with the present
application; and
(b) Direct the recording of further evidence of P.W.
3 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh and P.W. 4 Shri Virender
Singh, or of any other relevant official of A.B.S.
Public School, after production of a certificate of
the date of birth of the Victim as recorded in the
records of the school.
(c) pass any other or further order(s) as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”
3. The present application was considered by the Court on 15th January,
2026, and having perused the same as also having heard the parties, the Court
had directed the victim to file the additional documents sought to be brought
on record. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
“11. During the pendency of the present appeal, the
present application being CRL.M.A. 21475/2025 has
been filed by the Survivor, for bringing on record
certain documents and for leading further evidence.
12. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, ld. Counsel for the
Survivor submits that the present application has
been filed on behalf of the Survivor to lead further
evidence in respect of her date of birth.
13. Upon a query from the Court, ld. Counsel further
submits that the Survivor prays for recording of
further evidence of PW-3, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh
and PW-4, Mr. Virender Singh, and any other
relevant official of A.B.S., Public School, along with
production of certain documents, including date of
the birth of the Survivor from the school records.
14. It is clarified by the ld. Counsel for the Survivor
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 2 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

that the aforesaid documents are part of the Trial
Court record. This position is disputed by Mr. N
Hariharan, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant.
15. Heard. The Court has perused the application
and notices that there are no documents forming part
of the school record, that have been attached with the
present application.
16. Ld. Counsel for the Survivor seeks time to file the
aforesaid documents.
17. Accordingly, let the aforesaid documents be filed
by 31st January, 2026, with an advanced copy being
served upon ld. Counsel for the Appellant and CBI.
18. Ld. Counsels for the Appellant and CBI are
permitted to file a reply to this application.
19. The application shall be considered on the next
date of hearing.”
4. Today, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, ld. Counsel appearing for the victim
submits that he restricts the prayer in this application for leading additional
evidence only to the date of birth certificate from the A.B.S. Public School,
Saidapur, Chivlaha, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter “ concerned
school ”) where the victim had studied. It is submitted that the said document
ought to have been called for during the trial in order to remove any doubt that
may arise in respect of the age of the victim.
5. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter “ the JJ Act ”)
for determining the age of the victim, first and foremost, the date of birth
certificate from the concerned school had to be called and produced. However,
the same had not been done by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter
“ CBI ”). It is Mr. Pracha’s submission that the CBI was hand in glove with the
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 3 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

Accused/Appellant.
6. The further submission is that the date of birth certificate from the
concerned school being one of the documents that could establish the date of
birth of the victim in an uncontroverted manner, the same ought to be called
for even at the appellate stage.
7. Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, ld. SPP for the CBI has filed a reply to this
application and has submitted that all the available evidence in respect of the
date of birth of the victim had already been produced before the Trial Court.
The ld. SPP has relied on the relevant paragraphs of the CBI’s reply which
read as under:
“5. That the contents of para 5 of the application
pertains to F.I.R. No.314 of 2018 registered at P.S.
Makhi, District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh. This case has not
been investigated by CBI. It has been submitted by the
victim/survivor that the F.I.R. No.314 of 2018 registered
at P.S. Makhi pertains to an alleged forged Transfer
Certificate from A.B.S. Public School, where the victim/
survivor had first attended school. It is submitted that
CBI has duly submitted in the charge sheet filed before
the Learned Trial Court that date of birth of the victim/
survivor as disclosed from admission register of ABS
Public School, Chhibalaha, Saidapur, District Rai
Bareli is 17.08.2001, while the date of birth as disclosed
from Transfer Certificate purportedly issued by ABS
Public School, Chhibalaha, Saidapur, District Rai
Bareli which was seized by CBI from Shri Mahesh
Singh, (paternal uncle of the victim) is 17.08.2002.
During trial, PW-3 Arun Kumar Singh, Principal of ABS
(Akbal Bahadur Singh) Public School, Saidapur, Sareni
Khande, Post Chhiblaj, District Raebarely, Uttar
Pradesh, deposed that during the investigation he
handed over the original "Admission Register of the
students from year 2005-2010 to the CBI, which is
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 4 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

Ex.PW-312 (D-16) wherein vide relevant entry No. 45
on pages 15 and 16, the date of birth of victim girl was
recorded as 17.08.2001. This was further corroborated
by PW-4 Virender Singh, Assistant Teacher at ABS
School, who deposed that the admission register D-16
was in his handwriting and he recorded the date of birth
of child 'AS' in the School as 17.08.2001, who was
admitted in Class-1 on 01.07.2006. PW-5 Chander Pal
Singh, the maternal grandfather of the victim/ survivor,
deposed that the victim/survivor (his maternal grand
daughter) lived with him during her child hood along
with his family in their house at village Khande Sarai,
where she studied in ABS Public School, Saidapur upto
5th Standard. This has been corroborated by PW-6
Dhirender Singh, the maternal uncle of victim/ survivor,
who deposed that the victim survivor as a child resided
with them at their village where she completed her
primary education from ABS Public School, Saidapur
from KG-1 to 5th Standard. Based on such evidence the
Ld. Trial Court accepted the date of birth of
victim/survivor as 17.08.2001 and concluded that the
victim/ survivor was a minor on the date of offence.
Regarding the contents pertaining to developments
between the victim / survivor and her then advocates
narrated in the application, the same are within the
knowledge of the victim/survivor and are not the subject
matter of the case investigated by CBI, hence merits no
comment from CBI.
xxx xxx xxx
13. That in reply to the contents of para 13 and prayer
of the application, it is submitted that during trial, PW-
3 Arun Kumar Singh, Principal of ABS (Akbal Bahadur
Singh) Public School, and PW-4 Virender Singh,
Assistant Teacher were examined by the prosecution
(CBI) and they proved the "Admission Register" of the
students from year 2005-2010 and the relevant entry
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 5 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

No.45 on pages 15 and 16. wherein the date of birth of
victim girl was recorded as 17.08.2001. Thus, it has
been proved during the trial that the victim/survivor was
a minor on the date of offence.”
8. Ld. Counsel for the CBI further submits that the Trial Court has already
held that the victim is a minor on the basis of the evidence produced during
the trial. In view of the same, it is submitted that appropriate orders may be
passed as Court deems fit.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. N. Hariharan, ld.
Senior Counsel submits that the Accused/Appellant has already served more
than ten years in custody. It is further submitted that this application would
only delay the matter further as all the evidence on behalf of the prosecution
to establish the age of the victim has already been produced on record.
10. In response, on behalf of the victim, it is submitted that no harm would
be caused to the Appellant, if the birth certificate is called for from the
concerned school, as the trial of this case was completed in an expeditious
manner and therefore, no delay would be caused in the hearing of the appeal
also after calling for the birth certificate.
11. Heard, ld. Counsels for the parties. The Court has perused the Trial
Court Record in this matter as also the pleadings. The victim in this case is
stated to have studied in A.B.S. (Akbal Bahadur Singh) Public School,
Saidapur, District Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh. The Principal of the concerned
school i.e. , Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, had deposed in the trial as PW-3 and the
following documents were exhibited by him:
(i) Ex.PW-3/1[D-15] : Seizure Memo prepared by the concerned
I.O. in respect of documents handed over by PW-3.
(ii) Ex.PW3/2 [D-16] : Register pertaining to admission of students
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 6 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

from the year 2005 to 2010 at the subject school.
(iii) Ex.PW3/3 [D-18] : Document qua recognition of the subject
school.
(iv) Ex.PW3/4 [D-17] : Handwritten letter dated 20th April, 2018
written by PW-3 (Principal of the subject school).
(v) Ex.PW3/4A : The format of Transfer Certificate issued by the
subject school.
In addition to PW-3 , the prosecution had also examined one Mr. Virender
Singh as PW-4 who was an Assistant Teacher at the concerned school at the
time of examination. The entries that were made in the admission register
exhibited as Ex.PW3/2 [D-16] have been corroborated by this witness as to
have been handwritten by him.
12. It is seen from the testimonies of both PW-3 and PW-4 that the said
register in respect of the students admitted from the year 2005 to 2010 was
maintained in the ordinary course of business. The observations of the Trial
Court in respect of the said register is relevant and the same are extracted
below:
“85. That brings us to the most contentious document
with respect to the aspect of determination of age of the
victim girl which is D-16 the admission register of ABS
Public School. The entries of which were made by PW-
4 Virender Singh Yadav and substantiated by PW-3
Arun Kumar Singh to the effect that vide entry No. 45, a
girl student ‘AS’ was admitted for studying in 1st
standard on 01.07.2006 whose date of birth was
recorded as 17.08.2001 and she completed her 5th
standard and left the school on 01.07.2011. PW-3 Sh.
Arun Kumar Singh and PW-4 Sh. Virender Singh
maintained that the admission register D-16 Ex.Pw-3/2
was being maintained in the “ordinary course of their
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 7 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

business” and there is no challenge to the fact that it
was PW-4 Virender Singh, who had been maintaining
the entries in the said register. A meticulous scrutiny of
the admission register Ex.PW-3/2 would show that the
entries had been made in respect of admission of
students in ABS Public School, Saidapur, Raebareli,
U.P. from the year 2005 to 2011 and PW-4 Virender
Singh categorically stated that he did the corrections in
entry No. 45 at Q-1 writing in Hindi pointing
out that date of birth was otherwise correctly mentioned
in English numerals as ‘17.08.2001’. Similarly, at point
Q-2 the name Village Makhi was corrected instead of
the word ‘Mali’. No suggestion was given to PW-4 that
such correction was done by him for ulterior motives or
at the instance of PW-9 Mahesh Singh or the
Investigating Officer of the CBI.
86. Much was urged about the cuttings on the cover of
admission register X-1, X-2 and X-3, which are
inconsequential. The admission register D-16 Ex.PW-
3/2, seen holistically reflect that the relevant entires
were made in different ink or Pen from time to time and
the mere fact that date of admission of each child was
recorded as 01.07.2006 (which as per the learned
Counsel for (A-1) happened to be Sunday) hardly invites
an adverse consequence to the case of the
prosecution/CBI since it was an area where students
were coming from rural background and it has come in
the evidence of PW-3 that Academic Session was
starting full-fledged from July every year. Mere fact that
recognition had not been granted to the School and that
it was only granted in the year 2012 as per Ex.PW3/4 is
again hardly of any consequence since it is not unknown
that many private school are run without recognition,
and government recognition comes about in due course
of time. It appears to be unthinkable that when one is
operating a private school, they would not be
maintaining a proper attendance register that would be
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 8 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

basic document for facilitating collection of tuition fees.
PW-3 Arun Kumar Singh pointed out that it was a self
financed project by Mr. Bhupender Singh and it is not
unknown that many Kindergarten School or Primary
School are run without recognition on premise of
imparting better education and atmosphere to the
students. No reasons have been attributed to PW-3 Arun
Kumar Singh and PW-4 Virender Singh by way of
suggestion or otherwise so as to demonstrate that they
had any reasons to fabricate the admission register (D-
16) Ex.PW-3/2 and / or to depose falsely before the
Court in order to support the case of the victim/survivor
girl ‘AS’ and her family members. Interestingly, there is
no denying the fact that Dr. Bhupinder Singh and
Rajesh Kurmar Singh in their above noted statement
Ex.PW- 13/D-7, Ex.PW13/D-8, PW-13/D-1 and PW-
13/D-9 vouched the authenticity of their school record.”
13. A perusal of the judgement of the Trial Court would show that the Trial
Court has considered several aspects to determine the age of the victim,
including the oral testimony of the victim herself, the Parivar record i.e.,
Ex.PW2/3 , the records of the concerned school, and record of the Govt.
Primary School, Khande Sarai. Having considered these aspects, the Trial
Court has reached the following conclusion on the issue of the victim’s age:
“94. To sum up, I have no hesitation in holding that
the victim/survivor ‘AS’ and her family members
have been able to establish that she studied in ABS
Public School, Saidapur, Raebarely, UP. In view of
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, the Court has to look
no further and the medical evidence brought on
record in the nature of Ossification or age
determination test of the girl ‘AS’ need not be looked
into. Moreover, final opinion from the AllMS vide
admitted document D-30 dated 23.06.2018 would
show that earlier findings by the RML, Lucknow that
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 9 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

girl was over 19% years of age were diluted and
final report came that she was of 18 years of age as
on the date of medical examination on 22.06.2017.
The said report is in sync with the testimony of
victim/survivor ‘AS’ and is also a consistent
version of her family members and thus an
inference can be drawn that on the date of alleged
incident on 04.06.2017, the girl ‘AS’ was most
probably a minor .
95. In the said view of the discussion, I find that
prosecution / CBI has been able to prove the core
foundation of its case under POCSO Act, and
accordingly, the victim/survivor ‘AS’ was a ‘child’
within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the POCSO
Act, as on the date of commission of offence. ”
14. Thus, the Trial Court has categorically held, on the basis of the evidence
on record, that the victim was a minor as on the date of the incident which is
the subject matter of the present appeal.
15. The present application has been moved, despite the above findings, on
the basis of certain apprehensions of the victim. The prayer is for bringing on
record the birth certificate of the victim from the concerned school.
16. However, at this stage, the Court’s attention has been drawn to
Ex.PW3/4 i.e., the handwritten letter dated 20th April, 2018 provided by the
Principal of the concerned school to the concerned Investigating Officer. In
the said letter, it is stated that no birth certificate was submitted to the
concerned school at the time of admission as it was not the practice to obtain
such a birth certificate at the relevant time. For the sake of completeness, the
said letter written in Hindi is extracted below along with the translation of the
same:
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 10 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 11 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH:
A.B.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL
SAIDAPUR, CHIVLAHA, RAEBARELI
Date: 20.04.2018
To,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
C.B.I./A.C.B Hazratganj, Lucknow
Subject: In regard to Case No. R.C. 0062018S0006.
Respected Sir,
It is brought to your kind notice that this school (A.B.S.
Public School, Saidapur) was established in the year 2004. The
District Basic Education Officer granted temporary recognition
to this school on 20.12.2008 retrospectively from 01.07.2008.
XXX, D/o Sh. XXX and XXX, was admitted to my school on
01.07.2006 in standard I. At the time of admission, no relevant
documents including the birth certificate, application for
admission etc. were submitted as they were not even required
at the time .
Furthermore, it is also apprised that my school began
issuing transfer certificates only after being recognized in 2008.
However, the school has not been able to procure any documents
in this regard. The transfer certificates issued by the school from
2009-2015 were bought from the market and the said forms did
not possess the name of the school. Information relating to the
student and the name of the school was filled manually on the
said form. A certified blank transfer certificate form that the
school has been issuing since 2015 has been enclosed with this
letter. It is also noteworthy that both the forms are identical.
Thanking You,
Sd/- (In English),
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 12 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

Arun Kumar Singh,
Principal, A.B.S. Public School,
Saidapur, Chivlaha, Raebareli,
Date: 20.04.2018
Enclosed: As above
17. A perusal of the above letter would show that the Principal of the
concerned school has clearly certified to the concerned Investigating Officer
that at the time of admission of the victim, no other document such as birth
certificate was submitted to the school and the same was also not necessary as
per the practice at the prevalent time.
18. In the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate to also consider the
applicable law for determination of age as provided under the JJ Act. A
perusal of Section 94 of the JJ Act, which is the provision in respect of
presumption and determination of age, also applicable to the POCSO Act,
would show that a hierarchy of documents has been provided in sub-clause 2
thereto. As per the same, the priority is given to a date of birth certificate from
the respective school or matriculation certificate from the respective
examination board, which if available, shall be produced. In the absence
thereof, birth certificate from a Corporation/Municipal Authority/ or a
Panchayat, may be produced. It is only in cases where neither of the two
categories of documents are available, would determination through
ossification test or other medical examination may be resorted to. The said
provision is extracted hereunder:
“94. Presumption and determination of age.—(1)
Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board,
based on the appearance of the person brought before
it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than
for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 13 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record
such observation stating the age of the child as nearly
as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section
14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting
for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has
reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the
person brought before it is a child or not, the
Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall
undertake the process of age determination, by
seeking evidence by obtaining —
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from the
concerned examination Board, if available; and in
the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age
shall be determined by an ossification test or any
other latest medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the
order of the Committee or the Board shall be
completed within fifteen days from the date of such
order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board
to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for
the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of
that person.”
19. Recently, the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh,
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 14 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

Criminal Appeal No. 163/2025, has examined various aspects qua
determination of age under the JJ Act, including the appropriate stage and the
Court for such determination. The observations in this regard would be
applicable in the present case, and accordingly, the relevant portions thereof
are extracted hereunder:
“13.1 Section 2(d)of the POCSO Act defines a child as
any person below eighteen years. So, for the provisions
of this Act to be applied, the person against whom the
offence in question has been perpetrated must
necessarily be below 18 years of age. This is the sine
qua non. The natural question which then arises is
how the age of victim is to be determined. Jarnail
Singh v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 263] put this
question to rest as follows :
“23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly
applicable only to determine the age of a
child in conflict with law, we are of the view
that the aforesaid statutory provision should
be the basis for determining age, even of a
child who is a victim of crime. For, in our
view, there is hardly any difference insofar as
the issue of minority is concerned, between a
child in conflict with law, and a child who is
a victim of crime. Therefore, in our
considered opinion, it would be just and
appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007
Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6. The manner of determining age
conclusively has been expressed in sub-rule
(3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the
aforesaid provision, the age of a child is
ascertained by adopting the first available
basis out of a number of options postulated
in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options
under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 15 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

a preceding clause, it has overriding effect
over an option expressed in a subsequent
clause. The highest rated option available
would conclusively determine the age of a
minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3),
matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of
the child concerned is the highest rated
option. In case, the said certificate is
available, no other evidence can be relied
upon. Only in the absence of the said
certificate, Rule 12(3) envisages
consideration of the date of birth entered in
the school first attended by the child. In case
such an entry of date of birth is available,
the date of birth depicted therein is liable to
be treated as final and conclusive, and no
other material is to be relied upon. Only in
the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3)
postulates reliance on a birth certificate
issued by a corporation or a municipal
authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such
a certificate is available, then no other
material whatsoever is to be taken into
consideration for determining the age of the
child concerned, as the said certificate would
conclusively determine the age of the child. It
is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid,
that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination
of age of the child concerned, on the basis of
medical opinion.”
(emphasis supplied)
Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 200724 it must be noted, provides the
same hierarchy of documents as has been provided by
Section 94 of the JJ Act. The same is reproduced below
for felicity of reference:
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 16 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

[...]
14.5 Now we proceed to examine the merits of this
argument. It is clear from the above that all of these
cases discuss the determination of age from the point
of view of the offender and not the victim. Although the
process to be followed therefor is the same as that for
an offender as held by Jarnail Singh (supra), the
question involved in the instant lis concerns the
forum and the stage at which the determination of age
is to be made . According to the High Court, the bail
Court would, if a challenge is presented by the
offender, entertain such challenge and take a prima
facie view. Here, it becomes important to appreciate
the difference between the JJ Act and the POCSO Act.
[...]
14.6 Having discussed thus, the two separate fields that
these two legislations govern, we now turn back to the
question of age determination. If the POCSO Act is
examined, it can be found that the Act does not
prescribe a manner for determination of the age of
the victim. As we have already noticed, it is an
established position in law that the procedure under
Section 94 of the JJ Act is to be applied. [See: Section
34 of the Act] When the question of determination of
age of a child in conflict with the law emerges for the
first time before a Court, the concerned legislation
provides the procedure as housed in its Section 9 of the
Act lays down the procedure to be followed when a
person is brought before a Magistrate who is not
empowered under the Act, and there arises a claim or
reasonable doubt that such person is a child. In such
cases, the Magistrate must conduct an inquiry to
determine the person’s age in accordance with Section
94 of the Act, which prescribes the method for age
determination. If, upon inquiry, the Magistrate finds
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 17 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

that the person was a child at the time of commission
of offence, the case must be immediately forwarded to
the JJB having jurisdiction, which will thereafter deal
with the matter as per the provisions of the JJ Act.
Conversely, if the person is found not to be a child, the
Magistrate proceeds with the case as per the regular
criminal procedure. The object of Section 9 is to ensure
that no juvenile offender is tried as an adult merely due
to an initial misclassification and to safeguard the
rehabilitative and welfare-oriented spirit of the
juvenile justice system by ensuring that every child in
conflict with law is tried by the appropriate forum, i.e.,
the JJB
[...]
4.8 As is obvious and as we have observed, the victim
being a child is sine qua non for the application of the
POCSO Act. If a charge-sheet is filed and it contains
charges against a person under the POCSO Act, it is
but obvious that such an accused would challenge the
same at the first available instance in the Court
concerned, or in other words, at the inception of trial,
so as to ensure that the foundation of the trial is
correctly in place before it proceeds further. The Court
would then undertake the exercise as provided for,
and in accordance with the result obtained therefrom,
proceed further, either under the POCSO Act or
under the provisions of the IPC, as the case may be.
Should the accused be dissatisfied with the manner in
which the result has been drawn by the Trial Court,
an appeal from such determination would have to be
filed and only when the question of age is set at rest
can the trial proceed forward on firm footing .
14.9 Unlike an offender who can claim benefit of
juvenility at any point in time, even after completion of
proceedings given the beneficial nature of the JJ Act, a
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 18 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

victim of a crime cannot claim to be a juvenile at any
point in time, for the charges against which an offender
is tried, are intrinsically tied to the age of the victim. If
a victim of a sexual offence was allowed to claim
juvenility at any stage of the proceedings, in the same
manner that an offender can under Section 9 of the JJ
Act, it would have serious procedural and substantive
consequences. For instance, an accused may have been
charged under Section 376 IPC which applies when the
victim is an adult. However, if the victim is later
determined to be below eighteen, the offence would fall
under the POCSO Act, where consent is irrelevant and
the punishments are more stringent. This would mean
that the earlier trial, framing of charges, and recording
of evidence were all conducted under an incorrect
legal framework. The proceedings would therefore be
vitiated, and the trial could be rendered a nullity,
necessitating the reframing of charges and a fresh trial
under the correct statute.
14.10 As can be seen from Mahadeo v. State of
Maharashtra [(2013) 14 SCC 637] , and Sanjeev
Kumar Gupta (supra) the consideration of the
documents enumerated in Section 94, JJ Act is a
matter of consideration of evidence since it may
involve the examination of witnesses to prove the
veracity of the documents. That can only be done by
the Trial Court. Contra evidence to challenge the
documents, can also be presented only before the
Trial Court. In our considered view, therefore, the
High Court fell in error in holding that a Court in bail
jurisdiction is empowered to entertain a challenge to
the documents as Section 94 would not apply at the bail
stage.
20. It is clear from a reading of the above that the issue of determining the
age of the victim is central to the entire trial against an accused under the
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 19 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

provisions of the POCSO Act. The process of such determination being one
which requires appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court is best suited for
undertaking the same. The objections raised by an accused would also be dealt
with by the Trial Court and then proceed with the trial for offences punishable
either under the POCSO Act or the IPC.
21. In the present case, the Trial Court has undertaken extensive analysis
of the testimonies of the victim and other witnesses as also the exhibits placed
on record. The Principal of the concerned school has been examined and has
been given detailed testimony and the admission register having been
produced, it cannot be said that there would be a necessity to call for additional
evidence at the appellate stage. Moreover, it is clear from the letter exhibited
as Ex.PW3/4 that the date of birth certificate was not submitted in the
concerned school at the time of admission and consequently the same is not
available. Further, the said letter has been written in 2018 and, prima facie, in
the opinion of the Court, if the Principal of the concerned school had the
certificate the same would have been mentioned in or provided along with the
said letter. This view is supported by the fact that despite the Court granting
liberty to the victim to file additional documents sought to be brought on
record, no such document, including the birth certificate from the concerned
school has been filed by the victim. At this stage, after conviction of the
accused, the Court cannot start a fresh roving inquiry into a document which
is evidently not available with the school.
22. In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served at this stage
calling for any further documents from the school.
23. Accordingly, the present application is rejected and dismissed.
24. The matter would be heard on the basis of the evidence which is already
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 20 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14

on record.
25. All contentions of parties are left open and nothing contained in this
order shall affect the final adjudication of the present appeal.
CRL.A. 53/2020
26. Considering the fact that the Appellant has been in custody for a
substantial period of time, Mr. N. Hariharan, ld. Senior Counsel requests for
a short date.
27. The matter is, accordingly, fixed for hearing on 25th May, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2026/ ys/msh
CRL.A. 53/2020 Page 21 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:41:14