The Supreme Court has set aside the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court that mandated a medical examination for age determination of victims in all cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at the commencement of the investigation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the determination of a victim’s age is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated by a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court ruled that the High Court acted coram non judice (without jurisdiction) by issuing general directions that contravene the statutory hierarchy laid down in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
Brief Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, while granting bail to an accused, had directed that police authorities must ensure a medical report determining the victim’s age is drawn up in every POCSO case and that bail courts must accord full weight to such reports over other documents. The Supreme Court set aside these directions, clarifying that under Section 94 of the JJ Act, documentary evidence like school certificates takes precedence over medical tests, and the correctness of such documents is to be tested during the trial, not at the bail stage.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from First Information Report (FIR) No. 622 of 2022, registered at PS Kotwali, Orai, District Jalaun. The allegation was that a 12-year-old girl had been abducted. The accused, Respondent No. 1, was charged under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
While the Trial Court rejected bail, the Allahabad High Court, by an order dated May 29, 2024, granted bail. However, the High Court went further, observing “systemic lapses” where police failed to obtain medical age reports. Relying on its previous decisions in Aman @ Vansh v. State of U.P. and Monish v. State of U.P., the High Court issued several directions, including:
- Police must ensure a medical age determination report is drawn up at the commencement of investigation in all POCSO cases.
- Bail courts must accord “full weight” to the medical age report.
- In appropriate cases, the medically determined age can prevail over school records.
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Analysis
1. Jurisdiction: Statutory vs. Constitutional Power The Supreme Court first addressed whether the High Court, hearing a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, could issue such sweeping directions. The Bench distinguished between constitutional power and statutory power. While the High Court is a constitutional court, its jurisdiction under Section 439 is statutory and limited to adjudicating whether an accused should be released pending trial.
The Court observed:
“The constitutional power cannot overshadow the statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been envisaged by the statute… While both powers rest with the High Court, one power cannot usurp the ambit of another, unless otherwise permitted by law.”
The Bench held that the High Court erred in “undertaking such an exercise of issuing directions and getting the age of the victim examined in an application seeking grant of bail.”
2. Determination of Age: Hierarchy of Documents The Supreme Court reiterated the settled law regarding age determination, citing Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013). The Court emphasized that Section 94 of the JJ Act provides a strict hierarchy:
- Matriculation or equivalent certificate.
- In its absence, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended.
- In the absence of both, a birth certificate given by a municipal authority.
- Only in the absence of all the above, a medical age determination test (ossification test) is to be conducted.
The Court held that the High Court’s direction to mandatorily conduct a medical test at the inception of the investigation contravenes this statutory mandate.
“The necessary sequitur from the above exposition is that a medical determination of age of a victim cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, much less mandated. It can only be employed in a given circumstance when the other stipulations of Section 94 JJ Act are not/cannot be met.”
3. Mini-Trial Impermissible at Bail Stage The Bench clarified that while a bail court can look at documents to take a prima facie view, it cannot adjudicate their correctness. The veracity of age-related documents is a matter of evidence to be tested during the trial.
“The determination of the age of the victim is a matter for trial, and the presumption which is accorded to the documents enumerated under the Section, has to be rebutted there, for that is the appropriate forum to do so, not the bail Court.”
The Court stated that permitting a bail court to decide the validity of age documents would amount to conducting a “mini trial,” which is impermissible at the stage of bail.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the directions issued by the High Court. The Court held:
- The High Court in bail jurisdiction was coram non judice for issuing directions mandating medical examination of victims.
- The directions in the impugned judgment, as well as in the related cases of Aman and Monish, are set aside.
- The bail granted to the accused remains undisturbed based on other factors considered by the Single Judge.
Post-Script: Misuse of POCSO Act
In a “Necessitated Post-Script,” the Bench noted the “well-intentioned purport” of the High Court’s order regarding the misuse of the POCSO Act in consensual relationships. The Court observed that the Act is often “weaponised” against young couples or used to settle scores.
The Court directed the judgment to be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider steps to curb this menace, including:
“The introduction of a Romeo Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc.”
Case Details:
- Case Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr.
- Case No: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 10656 of 2025 (2026 INSC 47)
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
