Proceedings against a juvenile tried as an adult stand vitiated regardless of medical age estimates.

The Appellant, a juvenile originally from Punjab, was directed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal, to be kept at a Special Home (Girls) in Indore until she attained majority

While an inmate, she was accused of committing indecent acts and physical assault against other minor inmates on 25.04.2014

Despite a prior JJB order dated 07.02.2014 identifying her as a 16-year-old child in conflict with law, the Investigating Officer (PW-10) arrested her on 07.05.2014, recording her age as 22 years

The Trial Court (8th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore) convicted her under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act and Section 323 of the IPC, sentencing her to three years RI

The Appellant challenged the conviction, asserting she was a juvenile at the time of the incident.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in determining the age of the Appellant and treating her as an adult for the purpose of trial

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the Appellant, including the conviction and sentence, were legally sustainable given her status as a child in conflict with law

Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the right to appeal conviction

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act regarding the treatment of a "child in conflict with law" and the determination of age

The evidentiary value of medical ossification tests and prior judicial records (JJB orders) in determining juvenility, as well as the principle of "permissible error of margin" in age estimation

The High Court found that the prosecution and Trial Court committed a grave "travesty of justice". It noted that 07.02.2014 records from the JJB showed the Appellant was 16 years old, yet the police recorded her as 22 years old just three months later

The High Court observed that the Trial Court misinterpreted the ossification report (which estimated her age between 17 to 19 years) and ignored the Superintendant’s (PW-3) admission that the Appellant was 17 upon entry.

The court reasoned that the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent acted maliciously by presenting the child as an adult. Since the Appellant was a minor at the time of the incident, she could not have been tried or sentenced as an adult under the POCSO Act or IPC by a Sessions Court

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 26.12.2015, acquitted the Appellant, and ordered the refund of any fine paid

The court further directed the Director General of Police to initiate an enquiry against the Investigating Officer for maliciously recording a false age, which resulted in the Appellant’s illegal custody from 2014 to 2016