Matriculation certificate entries regarding age are deemed admitted if not specifically disputed during cross-examination.

The applicant-appellant was convicted on September 18, 2025, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kangra, for offences under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a minor, which resulted in the birth of a child.

The appellant sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, asserting that the victim’s age was not proved in accordance with law, the DNA evidence was unreliable due to a broken chain of custody, and the parents of the victim were not examined.

As of the hearing, the appellant had undergone approximately 2 years and 9 months of his sentence.

1. Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case for the suspension of sentence based on alleged infirmities in the evidence regarding the victim's age and scientific DNA profiling.

2. Whether the non-production of the original birth certificate and non-examination of the victim's parents are fatal to the prosecution's case at the stage of suspension of sentence.

The court primarily applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which establishes a hierarchy of evidence for age determination, giving precedence to school or matriculation certificates over certificates from the Registrar of Births and Deaths.

It further relied on the Indian Evidence Act, specifically the principle that facts stated in examination-in-chief that are not disputed in cross-examination are treated as admitted and do not require further proof.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention regarding the victim’s age, noting that the victim testified her date of birth was 06.09.2007 and produced her Matriculation certificate (Exhibit P6/PW2).

Since the defense failed to cross-examine or dispute this specific claim, the fact was deemed admitted.

Furthermore, the Court found that under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, the Matriculation certificate produced (duly corroborated by admission registers and school leaving certificates) was legally sufficient to establish minority.

Regarding scientific evidence, the Court observed that identification forms for both parties were sent with blood samples for DNA analysis, which conclusively proved the appellant was the biological father of the victim’s baby.

The Court concluded there was no ex facie likelihood of acquittal given the strength of the admitted testimony and DNA results.

The Court held that the age of the victim was sufficiently established through undisputed testimony and school records as per the statutory mandate of the JJ Act.

Consequently, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the application (CRMP No. 303 of 2026) for suspension of sentence.