POCSO: School Birth Records Can't Be Disputed Without Prior Challenge

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi of the Orissa High Court, while hearing an appeal filed by two gang-rape convicts, held that the genuineness of a victim's date of birth as recorded in a school admission register cannot be disputed in appeal unless specific questions were put in cross-examination to the concerned witness to prove that the entry was incorrect, fabricated, or made on an erroneous basis. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The case arose from an alleged gang-rape of a minor girl. 
• On the night of 03.04.2016, when the victim's parents were away from the village, the appellants allegedly visited her house, caught hold of her upon her opening the door, gagged her mouth, and forcibly carried her to a hillock near the village. 
• The victim was allegedly confined from the night of 03.04.2016 until the morning of 05.04.2016, during which she was tied, denied food, and repeatedly raped by both appellants. 
• On the morning of 05.04.2016, the appellants abandoned her near her house, following which she disclosed the incident to the assembled villagers. 
• An FIR was registered, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. 
• The Special Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, and 376(2)(n) IPC, along with Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, and convicted the appellants on all counts. 
• On appeal, the primary question before the High Court was the proof of the victim's age, since the prosecution relied on the school admission register to establish her date of birth as 17.12.1999, making her a minor at the time of the offence. 
• The appellants challenged this evidence on the ground that the former Headmaster who produced the register admitted in cross-examination that he could not state the basis of the entry, as he was not posted at the school at the relevant time. 
• Reliance was placed on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 863, to argue that a school register whose foundational basis is unknown cannot constitute reliable proof of age. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the defence's failure to specifically challenge the entry: The Court noted that despite prolonged cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2, PW-16, and PW-18, no specific suggestion was ever put to any witness that the date of birth entry in Ext-13 was incorrect, fabricated, or erroneously made. This omission was held to be of decisive significance, leaving the statutory presumption attached to the register wholly unrebutted. 
• On distinguishing Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana: The Court held that the critical difference between the present case and Birka Shiva lay in how the challenge was mounted. In Birka Shiva, the defence had specifically challenged the basis of the entry through targeted cross-examination and led material to show it was unreliable. No such specific challenge was made in the present case. 
• On the principle of confrontation in cross-examination: Relying on Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs (2013), the Court reiterated the settled principle that a party seeking to dispute the correctness of a witness's statement must specifically confront the witness with that part of the testimony during cross-examination, failing which the witness's credibility cannot later be impeached. 
• On the invocation of Section 34 of the POCSO Act: The appellants objected that Section 34 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to determining the age of the accused, could not be invoked to determine the age of the victim. Relying on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court held that Section 34 was rightly used as a procedural conduit to import the established Juvenile Justice Act hierarchy for age determination, since the POCSO Act contains no dedicated provision for determining a child victim's age, and the Supreme Court's approval of this hierarchy in Jarnail Singh was not confined to the accused alone. 
• On the final outcome: Having upheld the prosecution's evidence on the victim's minority, and after examining the remaining evidence on record, the Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 363, 366, and 376-D of the IPC read with Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. 

What is Section 34 of the POCSO Act? 

Section 34 of the POCSO Act – Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court: 

• Sub-section (1) — Offence committed by a child: Where any offence under this Act is committed by a child, such child shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016). 
• Sub-section (2) — Determination of age by Special Court: If any question arises in any proceeding before the Special Court whether a person is a child or not, such question shall be determined by the Special Court after satisfying itself about the age of such person, and it shall record in writing its reasons for such determination. 
• Sub-section (3) — Effect of subsequent proof of incorrect age: No order made by the Special Court shall be deemed to be invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the age of a person as determined by it under sub-section (2) was not the correct age of that person.