P. YUVAPRAKASH versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 18-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
478
P. YUVAPRAKASH
v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1898 of 2023)
JULY 18, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 –
ss.3,4,5,6,7, 34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children)
Act, 2015 – s.94 – Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.10
– Penal Code, 1860 – s.366 – Acquittal under – The prosecution
alleged that the appellant-accused and others kidnapped the victim
‘M’ (allegedly 17-year-old girl) – Complaint lodged u/s. 366A of
IPC – Appellant solemnized marriage with her and engaged in sexual
intercourse – M was traced by police – In her statement recorded,
‘M’ stated that she had known accused and both loved each other
and had eloped voluntarily – The trial Court held appellant and
others guilty and he was sentenced inter-alia u/s. 6 of the POCSO
Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life – High Court confirmed
appellant’s conviction under the POCSO Act but his sentence was
reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment; he was also convicted
u/s 10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act – Appellant was acquitted
from the charge u/s. 366 of the IPC  – On appeal, held: The
documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the
admission register, are not as per mandate of s. 94(2)(i) JJ Act and
nor they are in accord with s.94(2)(ii)JJ Act – Thus, the only piece
of evidence, accorded with s. 94 of the JJ Act was the medical
ossification test and the PW-9 (examining doctor) opined that victim
was between 18-20 years and in cross-examination PW-9 said that
the age might be 19 years – The result of the ossification or bone
test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by PW-9 –
Considering the statement of victim u/s. 164 CrPC, 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 – Charges against accused u/s.6 of the POCSO Act as
well as s.10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act cannot be
sustained – Judgment of High Court set aside and appellant
acquitted.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 478 : 2023 INSC 676
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
Allowing the appeal, the Court
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 b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.