Delhi High Court upholds trial court decision to rely on victim’s Aadhaar card to clear accused of POCSO charges

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order discharging an accused of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) on the basis of the alleged victim’s Aadhaar card, which indicated that she had crossed the age of majority. [State (GNCT Of Delhi) versus Rohit Kumar].In this case, the Aadhaar card showed the girl's age as being 21 years old. However, in a police complaint, the girl's mother had said that she was 16 years old..The trial court had relied on the Date of Birth (DoB) mentioned in the Aadhar card to discharge the accused of POCSO charges. On appeal, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain of the High Court agreed with the trial court's decision.While there was a school record showing another DoB, the Court noted that this information was not based on any birth certificate or related documents issued by the municipal or similar authorities.In the absence of these documents, the trial court “rightly relied upon the Aadhaar card” to ascertain the age of the victim, the High Court said.“The Investigating Officer did not collect any birth certificate from the school of the prosecutrix or birth certificate issued by MCD or any other statutory authority or panchayat. The coordinate Bench of this Court in State NCT of Delhi V Umesh ... also referred the Aadhaar card to determine the age of the prosecutrix,” the Court added..The High Court, therefore, dismissed an appeal filed by the State government against the trial court order. The prosecution had argued that the trial court had erred by relying upon the age mentioned in the Aadhaar card, and by not resorting to Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)..In cases of doubt regarding the age of the child, the Court noted that the JJ Act says that the age can be determined on the basis of a DoB certificate or the matriculation or equivalent certificate.The birth certificate issued by a municipal body or panchayat body can be relied upon if such records are not available. If both types of documents are not available, the age generally has to be determined by an ossification test or a similar medical test. .In the present case, the High Court further noted that the victim was not subjected to the ossification test to determine her approximate age, before confirming the trial court order. .The case before the Court involved allegations that the victim-girl was kidnapped, raped, and compelled to marry the accused. The case was filed on a complaint by the girl's mother. The girl, however, denied having been kidnapped or sexually assaulted by the accused..In view of this, the trial court had discharged the accused of all charges, observing that it was "clearly apparent that the accused and the prosecutrix were in love" and since she was 21 years of age as per her Aadhaar. The High Court has now upheld this trial court decision. Addition Public Prosecutor Utkarsh represented the State. Advocates Sunita Arora and Krishan Kumar represented the respondent (accused)..High Courts in India, in recent years, have passed contradictory judgments when it comes to relying on the Aadhaar card as a document of proof for determining the age of an accused or a victim. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in April this year, observed that there is no provision for taking into consideration the Aadhaar card as a proof of age for presumption and determination of age. Similarly, the Kerala High Court also, last year, held that the Aadhaar card is not recognized by the JJ Act as a document to prove the date of birth of an accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also made similar observations in the past. .[Read Order]