P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police

HELD:1. It is clear that none of the documents produced during the trial answered the description of “the date of birth certificate from the school” or “the matriculation or equivalent certificate” from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim’s age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating “that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years”. In the cross-examination, she admitted that M’s age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that “when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor”. This finding is, in this court’s considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94

(2) (i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94 (2) (ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim’s bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-9. [Para 19][488-F-H; 489-A-D]

2. In her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC, the victim M had deposed that she was in love with the appellant, had consumed poison, and had even been hospitalized because she was adamant to live with the appellant. No doubt, she resiled from her statement. Yet, the medical evidence (deposition of PW11-doctor) indicated that the victim had a ruptured hymen; there was no external injury at her private parts, and that according to her “48 hours before medical examination there was no evidence to show that she had sexual assault is the opinion given by me.” This witness also produced her Notes of examination (Ex. P-11). In view of these facts, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution was not able to establish that there was any penetrative sexual assault as a result of coercion or compulsion on the part of the appellant. Even the High Court recognized this, albeit while reducing the sentence (since, in its opinion, M was a minor at the time), observing that “P.W.3 had gone to the extent of taking poison to commit suicide out of love failure, under enormous pressure, he had accompanied P.W.3, married her and had sexual intercourse with her, bothbefore the marriage as well was after the marriage.” From these facts, and the definitions under POCSO Act, especially the definitions of “sexual assault”, Sections 5 and 6, read with Sections 350 and 351 IPC, it can be seen that it is only when there is penetrative sexual assault, which implies sexual contact with or without consent of the minor victim, that the offences under the POCSO Act are committed.[Para 21][491-A-F]

Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2021] 12 SCR 502; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [2019] 9 SCR 735 – relied on.

Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v State of West

Bengal [2012] 9 SCR 224 – referred to.