A husband sought writ petition release of his wife Rani Kumari detained in an Observation Home amid a POCSO case alleging kidnapping and underage marriage. School admission records showed her date of birth as 14 January 2007; the court relied on Section 94 JJ Act over the ossification report and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1294 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2021 Thana- ISLAMPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
UPENDRA KUMAR SON OF SRI YODHI THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAKRAUT PS CHIKSAURA DISTRICT NALANDA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Upendra Prasad, Advocate Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, Advocate Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms.Saroj Sandiya, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
Kumar. Their marriage was solemnized on 19th of December, 2020. They married according to their own wish, as a result of love affair between them. The father of the wife of the petitioner was not satisfied due to her marriage with the petitioner as it was an inter-caste marriage. Therefore, he lodged an FIR, on the basis of which, Islampur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021, dated 11th of February, 2021 was registered under Sections 366A and 34 of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 2/10
the Indian Penal Code. The said case results in institution of G.R. Case No. 300 of 2021 and POCSO Case No. 22 of 2021. It is alleged that the daughter of the informant, Rani Kumari, was minor when she was eloped and the petitioner kidnapped her illegally for the purpose of marriage. On 18th of February, 2021, both the petitioner and said Rani Kumari were arrested, as per the allegation made in the FIR. Rani Kumari was sent to Remand Home on 10th of July, 2021. Since then, she is residing in the Observation Home. On 27th of September, 2021, Rani Kumari gave birth to a male child. The petitioner was released on bail on 3rd of January, 2023. Medical report of the victim was submitted, whereform it is ascertained that the age of Rani Kumari on the date of medical test was 19 years. Rani Kumari filed a petition for release on her bail before the Court of learned Additional 7th-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Nalanda at Biharsharif on 16th of May, 2023. However, her prayer was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 3/10
Board or the Special Court under the POCSO Act have no right to detain her in the Remand Home. She has also prayed for other consequential reliefs.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 4/10
“94 . (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 5/10
the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining —
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 6/10
the true age of that person. ”
M.P. , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750, making an inquiry in regard to the claim of juvenility under 2007 Rules, was stipulated as hereunder:
“32 .“Age determination inquiry” contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year. ”
Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, enables the Court to seek evidence, and in that process, the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 7/10
Court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificate, the Court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended by the juvenile other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the Court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit certificate or document). The question of obtaining a medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above-mentioned documents are unavailable. In case, an exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the Court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on the lower side within the margin of one year.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 8/10
determination of age when there is birth certificate recorded in the admission register of the school.
(i). The prosecution case set out in the FIR states that the age of the victim is 15 years.
(ii). The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 16 years of age. As per the transfer certificate issued by the school her age is 13 years and 3 months.
(iii). There are material inconsistencies in the age related evidence relied on by the prosecution which discredits the prosecution case.
(iv). The victim has been falsely shown as minor only to aggravate the offence and cause the imprisonment of the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
(v). The victim is in fact a major. Medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the latest scientific and medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done ( SIC ) as it would falsify the prosecution case.
(vi). The applicant and the victim were intimate.
(vii). The F.I.R. is a result of an opposition
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 9/10
of the victim's parents to her relationship with the applicant.
(viii). The statement of the victim is tutored and made at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim and to save the failing prosecution.
(ix). No medical evidence corroborates forceful assault.
(x). There is no evidence of forceful entry in the house of the victim. The victim was a consenting party.
(xi). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
aforesaid judgement does not relate to the issue of age determination.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1294 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2024 10/10
writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.
is dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/skm-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Rani Kumari is a major entitled to release from the Observation Home despite detention under POCSO proceedings
Which evidence governs age determination when school admission register and ossification test report conflict
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P.Relied on¶7
(2012) 9 SCC 750 · Who else cites this
Monish vs. State of U.P & OrsDistinguished¶11
decided on 9th of February, 2023
Subhash Kumar vs. State of BiharDistinguished¶12
Criminal Appeal (DB) 588 of 2022 decided on 18th of December, 2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Upendra Kumar
The State of Bihar
The Collector, Nalanda
Child Protection Home, Gaya (BAL Grih, Gaya)
The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda
Mithilesh Ram
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
