Section 91 CrPC permits production of earlier school records relevant to determining a prosecutrix’s age.

The petitioner was facing trial for offences including Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 5(G)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

During her testimony, the prosecutrix stated that she had studied from Class I to VI at a school in Nuwa, District Churu, and that she had educational documents relating to that schooling.

The petitioner applied under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking production of those records to assist in determining her age.

The Special Judge, POCSO Court, Bikaner, dismissed the application on 18 October 2022; the petitioner challenged that order in revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC.

Whether the earlier educational records identified by the prosecutrix were relevant to determining her age and therefore necessary or desirable to be produced under Section 91 CrPC

Whether the trial court erred by refusing production after assessing the records’ likely contents and evidentiary value before they were produced

Section 91 CrPC empowers a court to order production of a document where its production is “necessary or desirable” for an inquiry or trial; the document must have a reasonable and discernible nexus with a material issue, and the power must not be used for a fishing inquiry.

The court distinguished relevance at the production stage from proof and evidentiary weight, which are assessed after production.

Under the POCSO Act, the victim’s status as a child depends on whether she was under eighteen; age may also bear on the legal significance of consent in a prosecution under Section 376 IPC.

The prosecutrix’s testimony specifically identified her earlier schooling and related educational records, giving the requested material a direct connection to the disputed question of age.

Because age could affect the applicability of the POCSO Act and the legal consequences of the Section 376 IPC allegation, the records were not sought as part of a speculative or unrelated inquiry.

The trial court could not reject the request by assuming that the records would contain only academic material or by assessing their likely contents before production; their authenticity and evidentiary worth were matters for consideration after they were produced.

It allowed the Section 91 CrPC application to the extent of directing production of the relevant educational records for Classes I to VI, including any admission register, school record, date-of-birth entry, marksheets, or other relevant contemporaneous documents maintained by the institution.

The Court expressed no view on the correctness, authenticity, or evidentiary value of any entry; those matters were left to the trial court to determine according to law after hearing the parties.