Allahabad High Court flags improper medical reports on POCSO victims' age

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Uttar Pradesh government authorities to ensure that medical specialists tasked with determining the age of the victims in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) are properly trained [Dharmendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others].

Justice Ajay Bhanot issued the directive after observing that in several POCSO cases, the medical report mechanically records the age of the victim without giving any reasons to support its findings.

The Court observed that such mechanical reports violate the requirements of Section 27 [medical examination of a minor victim of sexual assault] of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A(2)(3) [medical examination of rape victim] of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

"The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh and Director General, Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh, shall ensure that the medical specialists who determine the age of the victims/medical reports under the POCSO Act are properly trained and the said medical reports are drawn up after giving reasons for the conclusions consistent with the mandate of Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of the Cr.P.C," the Court proceeded to order in its September 27 judgment.

Notably, the POCSO Act imposes stringent punishments if a minor/ child is sexually assaulted. Therefore, the determination of whether a victim of sexual assault was an adult at the time of the crime or a minor assumes significance in POCSO cases.

The Court's attention was drawn to lapses in medical reports prepared to confirm the victim's age, while dealing with a bail application by a man accused in a POCSO case.

The man had been accused of raping a 15-year-old girl. The accused, however, maintained that the girl was older than 15 years and that her parents had incorrectly recorded her age in her school records.

He also alleged that relations between him and the victim were consensual and that they were also briefly married for around five months, before the victim left his company after they became estranged.

The victim, in a statement to the police, said that she was 15 years old. However, the accused man alleged that her age was wrongly stated to implicate him in a POCSO case.

The Court eventually granted the accused man bail after noting that there were material contradictions in the aspect of the victim's age. While the accused man claimed that she was an adult, her school records showed her to be 15 years old and a medical report said that she was 13 years old.

In doing so, the Court also took a serious view of the applicant's submission that the medical report filed in this case was mechanically prepared and bereft of reasons. The Court concluded that such a report is invalid.

"In the instant case the age column has been simply filled, and the reasons for the conclusion regarding age is absent. The report is invalid. Reasons and description of the medical parameters or scientific criteria adopted to determine the age of the victim are the mandatory prerequisites of a valid medical report. The Court is noticing that in a number of cases the medical report mechanically records the age of the victim," it observed.

The Court emphasised that in medical reports, it is crucial to record the reasons supporting the findings on a victim's age.

"Reasons and description of the medical parameters or scientific criteria adopted to determine the age of the victim are the mandatory prerequisites of a valid medical report," it said.

Advocate Shashi Kumar Mishra appeared for the bail applicant.

Addtional Government Advocate-I Paritosh Kumar Malviya appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

[Read Judgment]