Jodhpur<\/strong>: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order refusing to summon the earlier educational records of a POCSO prosecutrix holding that the age of a prosecutrix is a foundational fact in a POCSO prosecution and that documents capable of having a bearing on her age cannot be shut out merely by assuming what they may contain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Farjand Ali, allowed the petition filed by and set aside the order and directed the concerned educational institution to produce the prosecutrix\u2019s relevant records relating to her schooling from Class I to Class VI, including admission registers, school records, date-of-birth entries, marksheets and other contemporaneous educational documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner was facing trial, during her statement before the trial court, the prosecutrix stated that she had studied from Class I to VI, and that her marksheets and other educational documents were in her possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defence thereafter moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking production of those records to assist in determining her age. The Special Judge, POCSO Court, dismissed the application, aggrieved of which the accused approach to the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Upon which the State opposed the plea and supported the order passed by the trial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that the issue before it was not simply whether the documents were relevant in an abstract sense, but whether determining the prosecutrix\u2019s age had a bearing on the legal character and consequences of the allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court further observed that Thus, the determination as to whether the prosecutrix was below or above eighteen years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence is not a peripheral or collateral exercise; rather, it constitutes a foundational inquiry having a direct bearing upon the applicability of the special statutory regime invoked by the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the prosecutrix falls within the statutory definition of a child, the consequences flowing from the provisions of the POCSO Act necessarily follow; whereas, if she had attained the age of majority, the very basis for invoking the provisions of the POCSO Act would require examination in that light.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further held that in a prosecution under Section 376 IPC, the question of age cannot be separated from the question of consent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, where the prosecution itself relies upon circumstances in which age is material, the defence cannot be prevented from placing before the Court relevant material that may assist in determining that foundational fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court clarified that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not give parties an unrestricted right to summon every document they consider useful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court must examine whether the document has a reasonable nexus with the inquiry or trial and whether its production would facilitate a just and effective adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the provision also cannot be interpreted so narrowly that relevant material is excluded before it reaches the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that at the stage of deciding an application for production of documents, the Court is not required to conclusively determine their ultimate evidentiary value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The relevant question is whether the documents have a reasonable and discernible connection with a material issue in the trial. Their evidentiary worth can be examined after they are produced and subjected to the process of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the prosecution had relied upon educational records relating to a higher class for establishing the prosecutrix\u2019s age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the prosecutrix herself had disclosed that she had studied from Class I to VI and that the relevant educational documents were in her possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that if the material produced during the trial raises a legitimate question as to whether the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence, the defence is entitled to test the prosecution case on that foundational aspect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that any variation in the date of birth appearing in earlier educational records could have a direct bearing on the applicability of the POCSO Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that the accused\u2019s right to a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend is an integral facet of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where a document is capable of materially assisting the defence and its production is warranted in the circumstances, the opportunity to produce it cannot be denied merely on the basis of conjecture about what the document may or may not contain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside order and allowed the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for the production of the relevant records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Court clarified that Production of Records does not Establish their authenticity will be examined by Trial Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Age of Prosecutrix Is Foundational Fact in POCSO Case; Relevant Educational Records Cannot Be Rejected on Assumption of Their Contents Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order refusing to summon the earlier educational records of a POCSO prosecutrix holding that the age of a prosecutrix is a foundational fact in a POCSO … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9297,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[3602,3601,3608,3604,3607,3609,836,3605,2501,470,1759,2556,2559,659,43,832,3603,2563,3606],"class_list":["post-9855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-age-determination","tag-age-of-prosecutrix","tag-child-witness","tag-class-i-vi-records","tag-consent","tag-date-of-birth","tag-defence-rights","tag-educational-records","tag-evidence","tag-fair-trial","tag-pocso-act","tag-pocso-case","tag-prosecutrix","tag-rajasthan-hc","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-right-to-defence","tag-school-records","tag-section-376-ipc","tag-section-91-crpc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9855"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9855\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9857,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9855\/revisions\/9857"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}What Was the Case?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Age\u2019 Has a Direct Bearing on Applicability of POCSO<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe applicability of the said enactment is founded upon the victim being a \u201cchild\u201d within the meaning of the statute, namely, a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. <\/p>\n\n\n\nAge Also Relevant to Consent Under Section 376 IPC<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Section 91 Cr.P.C. Requires Reasonable Nexus, Not Fishing Inquiry<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Evidentiary Value cannot be decided Before Seeing the Document<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Earlier School Records Could Contain Crucial Age-Related Material<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Defence Entitled to Test Foundational Issue<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Rajasthan HC Allows Production of Class I-VI Records<\/h4>\n\n\n\n