Medical Authorities Should Give Reasoned Medical Reports For Age Determination Of Victims In POCSO Cases: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court directed authorities in Uttar Pradesh to ensure that medical specialists responsible for determining the age of victims in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) receive adequate training.
The Court said that the medical authorities should give reasoned medical reports for age determination of victims.
The Court's concerns were raised during a bail application for an individual accused of raping a 15-year-old girl.
A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that medical reports in several POCSO cases often merely state the victim's age without providing any supporting rationale for their findings.
The Court emphasized that such mechanical reports violate the stipulations of Section 27 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to the medical examination of minor victims of sexual assault, as well as Sections 164A(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which govern medical examinations of rape victims.
The Court ordered, “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.”
Advocate Shashi Kumar Mishra appeared for the applicant, while Additional Government Advocate Paritosh Kumar Malviya appeared for the Respondents.
The accused claimed that their relationship was consensual and that they had been briefly married for about five months before separating. While the victim asserted she was 15 years old in her police statement, the accused argued that discrepancies in age were intentionally introduced to implicate him under the POCSO Act.
The Court eventually granted bail, highlighting contradictions regarding the victim's age: the accused claimed she was an adult, her school records indicated she was 15, and a medical report stated she was only 13.
The Court expressed serious concerns regarding the preparation of the medical report, noting it lacked reasoning and appeared to be mechanically generated. It said, “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.”
The Court emphasized that it is essential for medical reports to thoroughly document the reasoning behind age determinations.
“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 affirmed.
Cause Title: Dharmendra v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2024:AHC:158630]
