Showing posts with label age of victim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label age of victim. Show all posts

Friday, 6 October 2023

Under which circumstances the court can held that victim was minor even though no ossification test was conducted?

 There was no ossification test conducted in this case, however, this question would come when the girl is on the border line. When there is still margin of four years, it cannot be said that the girl was not a "child" as defined under Section 2(d)of the POCSO Act. The father of the victim who has the knowledge of the date of birth of the daughter, his testimony would be also important in that respect and, therefore, in this case the prosecution had proved that the victim was a child.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2016

Decided On: 03.10.2023

 Sunil  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3996/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page

Whether the court can rely on identification of accused by victim even if she has not stated name of accused in her statement U/S 164 of CRPC?

The identification of the accused is the important point raised on behalf of the accused, however, only a stray suggestion or question was asked in the cross-examination. It was not tried to be elaborated and it was not extracted as to whether she had seen the accused prior to the incident or not. She was certain in saying that the boy was from out of village and she is unable to tell his name and after the incident he ran away. Only on the basis of this statement, we cannot come to the conclusion that the identification of the accused by the victim is false or inadmissible. A witness may not be knowing name of the accused, but thereafter with the description or some other particulars like relative of somebody to whom the witness is knowing or would have seen residing in a particular place are the criteria with which the identity can be established. Here, no questions were asked on that point, but the fact is that the incident is alleged to have taken place at 8.00 a.m. i.e. the broad daylight and she had sufficient time to recognize the accused. Rather it has been extracted in her cross-examination that she had stated about the incident to her brother after returning home and after her parents reached there, they went to the police station on the same day. That means what has been left out in the examination-in-chief has been extracted in the cross-examination. Therefore, we do not find any fault as regards the identification of the accused. Her identification before the Court i.e. in the substantial evidence carries importance. No doubt, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she has not stated the name of the accused, but at that time, the accused was not before the girl and, therefore, the identification is important, rather than the name. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2016

Decided On: 03.10.2023

 Sunil  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3996/2023.

Print Page

Tuesday, 14 March 2023

Supreme court guidelines for determination of age of victim of an offence under the Pocso Act

  On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under :

"12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.- (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.

(2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.

and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.

(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.

(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in subrule( 3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law."

Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion. {Para 20}

SUPREME COURT

P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.

Jarnail Singh Vs. State Of Haryana

Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2010

1st July, 2013

Citation: 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2946 (S.C.)

Print Page

Important Supreme Court and Bombay HC Judgments on POSCO Act (Part 1)

 

1) Supreme court guidelines to Judges about Judgments writing in sexual offences.


APARNA BHAT & ORS. Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Dated:March 18, 2021.



2) Guidelines of supreme court for grant of compensation to child victim under POCSO Act.


NIPUN SAXENA Vs  UNION OF INDIA 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 05, 2018


3) Supreme Court: Copy of statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. of victim not to be given to accused until filing of chargesheet.


State of Karnataka  Vs. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna
[Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 5073/2011]
Dated; 25 April 2014

Print Page

Thursday, 4 May 2017

Whether accused can be convicted under POCSO Act if is not proved that victim was child at time of incident?

The provisions of the Act are stringent in nature.  Even
there  is a statutory presumption  under  Section  29  of  the  Act.
Since the enactment is stringent in nature, the degree of proof is
more strict.  The prosecution is under bounden duty to prove the
age of the prosecutrix to show that at the time of the incident, the
prosecutrix was “Child” within the meaning of provisions of the

Act.  The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the age of the
prosecutrix, on the date of the occurrence, was less than 18 years.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.412/2014

Ravi Anandrao Gurpude, V   State of Maharashtra,

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
CORAM:­ B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :­ 01.08.2016
Citation: 2017 CRLJ (NOC) 13 Bom,2017 ALLMR(CRI) 1509
Print Page

Sunday, 15 May 2016

When age of victim is not proved on the basis of school leaving certificate?

A School Leaving Certificate would be admissible in
certain cases to prove the date of birth of a person by virtue of the
provisions of section 35 of the Evidence Act.  A reading of section
35   of   the   Evidence   Act   indicates   that   to   render   a   document
admissible under it, three conditions must be satisfied, the first
being 'that the entry that is relied upon must be one in a public or
other official book register or record; the second being 'that it must
be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact;'  and the third
being 'that it must have been made by a public servant in discharge
of his official duty or any other person in performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law.'  An entry relating to date of birth made
in   a   school   register   would   be   relevant   and   admissible   under

section 35 of the Evidence Act, but, it has been held, that such
entry would not have much evidentiary value to prove the age of
the person in the absence of material on which the age was recorded.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.956 OF 2010
Sandeep Janaji Konde V The State of Maharashtra

­­­
   CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED  :    4th AUGUST,  2015
­­­
Citation; 2016 ALLMR(CRI)1433
Print Page