Age determination of POCSO victim requires no additional evidence at appellate stage if school records are already established.

The appellant, Kuldeep Singh Sengar, was convicted by the Trial Court for offences involving a minor victim under the POCSO Act.

During the pendency of his appeal, the victim filed an application (CRL.M.A. 21475/2025) seeking to lead additional evidence regarding her date of birth

Specifically, she requested the court to summon a birth certificate from A.B.S. Public School and re-examine school officials to conclusively establish her age as a minor at the time of the offence

The CBI contended that all relevant school records, including the admission register (Ex.PW3/2) stating her DOB as 17.08.2001, had already been proved during the trial

The Trial Court had previously relied on these records and the testimony of the Principal (PW-3) and Assistant Teacher (PW-4) to conclude the victim was a minor

The court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates a statutory hierarchy for age determination: first, the school date of birth certificate or matriculation certificate; second, the municipal/panchayat birth certificate; and third, only in the absence of the former, a medical ossification test

Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, which held that the JJ Act procedure applies to determine the age of victims of crime

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, which clarified that age determination is a matter of evidence and appreciation best suited for the Trial Court, and that a victim cannot claim "juvenility" at any stage in the same manner as an offender

The Court observed that the Principal of the school (PW-3) had already provided a handwritten letter (Ex.PW3/4) during the trial, stating that no birth certificate was ever submitted at the time of the victim's admission as it was not the practice then

The Trial Court had conducted an extensive analysis of the school’s admission register (D-16), corroborated by the handwriting of PW-4, and concluded the victim was a minor

The High Court reasoned that since the document sought (the birth certificate) is evidently non-existent or unavailable with the school, calling for it would result in a "roving inquiry"

Furthermore, per Anurudh, while an offender can claim juvenility at any stage, the age of a victim is central to the trial's foundation and should be set at rest during the trial stage to avoid vitiating the correct legal framework

The Court held that the appeal would be heard based on the existing trial record

The matter was listed for final hearing on May 25, 2026, considering the appellant's prolonged custody