Special Court Must Determine Victim's Age Under JJ Act Whenever Jurisdictional Status as Minor is Disputed

The Petitioner was accused of raping the daughter of Respondent No. 2 on 10.03.2025

Although initially registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 75(2)/64(1) of the BNS, 2023, excluding POCSO provisions after an ossification test suggested the victim was above 18 years old

The Special Judge (POCSO) initially returned the case to the CJM as no POCSO offence was made out

However, upon transfer to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge observed the victim was prima facie a minor based on Section 181/183 BNSS statements and directed the Special Judge (POCSO) to register the case and determine the victim's age

On 11.08.2025, the Special Judge (POCSO) framed charges under Sections 76/65(1) BNS and Section 4 POCSO Act

Section 28 and 33 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which designate a Court of Session as a Special Court, granting it powers of a Sessions Court and the authority to take cognizance without committal

It relied on Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) regarding the right to raise the claim of juvenility at any stage

Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, which prescribes the hierarchy of documents (School/Birth Certificate) for age determination

The court also cited Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. (2022) stating ossification tests are not conclusive proof of age

Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2014) regarding the court's power to frame charges for offences not in the charge-sheet based on prima facie satisfaction

The High Court clarified that a Special POCSO Court is at par with a Sessions Court and not subordinate to it; thus, the Sessions Judge’s direction to register the case was unwarranted but did not vitiate the proceedings as the Special Judge had independent jurisdiction

While the Special Judge was empowered to add POCSO charges despite their absence in the police report, the court found a procedural gap: since age was a contested material fact and the police report was contradictory to the FIR, a formal inquiry under Section 94 of the JJ Act should have been conducted

The court noted that because four witnesses had already been examined, quashing the charge-framing order was unnecessary; however, the legal requirement for conclusive age determination remained mandatory to maintain the Special Court's jurisdiction

The High Court directed the Petitioner to file an application for age determination within three weeks. The Special Judge (POCSO) is ordered to conduct an inquiry per Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. If the victim is found to be a minor, the trial will proceed under the POCSO Act; if found to be a major, the Special Judge—possessing the powers of a Sessions Court—shall continue the trial solely under the relevant BNS sections. The petition was disposed of with these directions.