Procedure For Determining Age Of Child Victim Under POCSO Same As Child In Conflict With Law Under JJ Rules: Rajasthan High Court

"The highest rated option 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," Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment dated May 27, 2026, held that the procedure for determining the age of a child victim under the POCSO Act must be the same as the procedure prescribed for a child in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice Rules.

A bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed that the statutory priority given to the matriculation certificate for age determination remains the "conclusive proof" of minority, overriding conflicting school entries or medical opinions.

The case arose from the conviction of self-styled godman Asha Ram @ Ashumal for the rape of a minor girl at his Manai Ashram in 2013. The appellant challenged the victim's status as a 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, alleging that her parents had intentionally recorded a lower age in school records. The defense relied on a different school register entry to argue that the victim was an adult at the time of the incident.

The primary question before the court was whether the procedure for age determination under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 applies to victims of sexual offences. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary hierarchy between a matriculation certificate and other school records when determining a victim's age.

Court Follows Jarnail Singh Precedent For Victims

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana to hold that there is hardly any difference regarding the issue of minority between a child in conflict with law and a child who is a victim of crime. The bench noted that the procedure prescribed in Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007, should be the basis for determining the age of a victim. The judges emphasized that the legal standards for protecting children must be uniform across the criminal justice system.

Court Follows Jarnail Singh Precedent

The bench observed that it was after conscious consideration that the Apex Court took the view that the statutory safeguards for juveniles should extend to child victims. The court noted that "the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining the age even for a child who is a victim of crime as there is hardly any difference so far as the issue of minority is concerned."

Priority Of Matriculation Certificate Over Other Records

The High Court clarified that in the hierarchy of evidence for age determination, the matriculation or equivalent certificate occupies the highest position. The bench held that if such a certificate is available, it has an "over-riding effect" on any other options expressed in subsequent clauses of the JJ Rules. This rule ensures that objective, board-issued documents are not discarded in favor of internal school registers that may be prone to manipulation.

Priority Of Matriculation Certificate

The bench remarked that the evidentiary value of the Matriculation certificate is not diminished merely because other school certificates are added to the record. The court stated, "In our opinion, the evidentiary value of the Matriculation certificate showing date of birth is not diminished... In case of their variance, the Court has to look into and evaluate the relevant material available on record and decide the question of date of birth appropriately."

"The highest rated option 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."

Retrospective Application Of JJ Act 2015

The appellants argued that since the JJ Act, 2015 came into effect during the trial, Section 94 of the new Act should govern the procedure instead of the 2007 Rules. However, the High Court held that even if Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 were applied retrospectively, the result would remain unchanged. The bench found that both provisions prioritize the matriculation certificate or school birth certificate as primary evidence of age.

Retrospective Application Of JJ Act 2015

The court found that the 2015 Act places the school birth certificate and matriculation certificate on equal footing, whereas the 2007 Rules gave priority to matriculation. However, it concluded that "even by retrospective application of Section 94 (2) of JJ Act, 2015 and the process prescribed therein... the result is the same (victim’s date of birth being 04.07.1997) as it would have been under Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007."

Rejection Of Defense Plea On Intentional Age Manipulation

The defense had contended that the victim's father intentionally recorded a younger age for his daughter years in advance to eventually entrap the appellant under POCSO provisions. The High Court dismissed this argument as "absurd and preposterous." It noted that a father would not anticipate a future rape to create a false legal paper trail when his child was only in primary school.

The bench observed that it would be the "height of perversity" to attribute such a motive to the parents. The Court noted, "We are of the considered opinion that it would be absurd, preposterous and the height of perversity to attribute any such motive to the father of the prosecutrix. Any such suggestion/attempt has, therefore, to be rejected out of hand."

Suspect Nature Of Defense Documentary Evidence

The bench closely examined 'Ex D/8-A', a school register entry produced by the defense claiming the victim was born in 1995. Upon comparison with the prosecution's 'Ex P/150', the court found "revealing rather disturbing" discrepancies. It noted that additions and changes were made to the register for "extraneous reasons" after the initial copy had already been issued to the police, rendering the defense's evidence unreliable.

The court found that the Principal of the school (DW-5) was unable to explain the flaws and discrepancies in the records produced by the defense. The bench held that "entry Ex D/8A pertaining to the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and that merely on its basis, disbelieving the Matriculation certificate... was not appropriate."

The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding that the victim was a minor (under 18) at the time of the offence, reaffirming her protections under the POCSO Act. While the court modified certain other convictions related to conspiracy, the core conviction of Asha Ram for the rape of a minor was sustained, primarily based on the conclusive nature of the victim's matriculation certificate.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026