Educational records not meeting the criteria of Section 94 JJ Act cannot override medical evidence for age determination.

The appellant, Pradeep Kumar, was convicted by the Trial Court on January 18, 2024, under Sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(3) and 506 of the IPC, and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, purportedly a Science teacher, repetitively raped the complainant’s daughter (prosecutrix) over a year by threatening her and her family.

The prosecutrix claimed she was born on July 19, 2006, and was a minor at the time of the incident.

Medico-legal reports found no physical injuries.

An age determination report opined her age to be over 19 years.

The defense produced evidence from the school's Assistant Teacher (DW-1) and attendance registers proving the appellant was never employed at the prosecutrix's school.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in determining the age of the prosecutrix by relying on non-mandated educational documents over a medical opinion.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix and the prosecution evidence were sufficient to prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the non-production of the DNA profiling report and non-examination of a material witness (the brother) warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution.

The Court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, which prioritize matriculation certificates or first-attended school records for age determination, falling back on medical tests only in their absence.

The Court relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana regarding the application of these rules to victims.

The Court applied Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P., which mandates a two-year margin of error for radiological age tests, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Section 294 Cr.P.C. regarding the admission of documents without formal proof.

Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, which allows a presumption that withheld evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it.

The "sterling witness" test from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The Court found the Trial Court’s determination of the prosecutrix’s minority perverse because it relied on a transfer certificate and scholar register that did not meet the specific criteria of Section 94 of the JJ Act, while ignoring a medical report suggesting she was an adult.

The Court noted that the Trial Court erroneously discarded the prosecution's own medical evidence because the accused had not proved it, violating Section 294 Cr.P.C.

The High Court observed that the Investigating Officer (PW-6) and DW-1 both confirmed the appellant was never a teacher at the school, contradicting the core of the prosecutrix’s testimony.

The prosecutrix’s claims also contained "material discrepancies," such as claiming 15-20 rapes occurred in a "jungle" within 4 days whereas the site plan showed an open field.

The prosecution's failure to produce the DNA profiling report despite finding male DNA, and the failure to examine the prosecutrix’s brother (a material witness), triggered an adverse inference against the State.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated January 18, 2024, and acquitted Pradeep Kumar of all charges.

The Court ordered the appellant’s immediate release upon furnishing a personal bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.