-
by sayum
06 July 2026 2:51 PM
Reaffirming the evidentiary weight of public documents in determining a victim’s age, the Supreme Court on this Tuesday upheld the conviction of Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav under the POCSO Act and IPC, declaring that the school admission register is sufficient proof of age when properly maintained and supported by witness testimony.
“Inspired confidence,” said a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, referring to the school records that established the date of birth of the minor victim as 15.09.2004. The incident in question occurred on 14.05.2018, which placed the victim at 13 years of age — squarely bringing the case within the ambit of child sexual abuse laws.
“Not Just a Paper Trail — It’s a Legal Proof”
The Court observed that the school admission register, maintained in the regular course of business and produced by PW-9, the school teacher, qualifies as a public document under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
“There is no reason to disbelieve the finding of the Trial Court and the High Court having independently considered the evidence,” the Supreme Court stated. The admission entry, recorded in both words and figures, mentioned the victim’s date of birth and was corroborated by the complainant (father of the victim) and the teacher.
The Court made it clear that “birth certificates or ossification tests are not mandatory when reliable school records exist.” Citing its own precedent in State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram, the bench reiterated that oral evidence from a teacher or parent, combined with official school registers, is sufficient to establish the age of a prosecutrix.
“Caste, Age and the Law Intersect with Justice”
This finding was crucial not only for invoking Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC but also for triggering Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which mandates life imprisonment when a crime punishable with 10 years or more is committed knowing the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
The defence had tried to challenge the age by pointing out minor discrepancies — such as whether the father had mentioned her age during admission — but the Court brushed them aside, finding them immaterial and irrelevant.
“In cross, the teacher clarified that the father stated the child was six at the time of admission,” the Court noted, holding that such minor variations did not affect the evidentiary chain.
“Evidence Must Be Read Holistically, Not With a Microscope”
In a strong endorsement of documentary evidence backed by live testimony, the Court emphasized that the victim’s minority was not a matter of doubt, and this was pivotal to sustaining charges under POCSO and IPC.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced that proof of age doesn’t demand unreasonable technicalities when the prosecution presents a clear, consistent, and legally admissible record. The judgment sets a strong precedent for future cases involving child victims — that justice doesn’t demand forensic obsession when documentary truth stands tall.
