Supreme Court of India· 10 September 2026

Can a Baptismal Certificate prove a POCSO victim's age under Section 94 of the JJ Act?

PYNCHEMALANGAKI BAREH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

2026 INSC 984 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4337 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice N.V. Anjaria

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.94 Juvenile Justice (Care and …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A Baptismal Certificate cannot prove the age of a POCSO victim, since it is not a document prescribed under Section 94 of the JJ Act.

No. A Baptismal Certificate cannot prove the age of a POCSO victim, since it is not a document prescribed under Section 94 of the JJ Act, to which courts have to take recourse even where the mother's deposition corroborates the date of birth. Here no school or matriculation certificate, no birth certificate of a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat, and no ossification test was obtained, so minority was not proved.

Headnote

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s.94 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.3, 4 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.464 — Age Of Victim — Baptismal Certificate — Omission To Frame Charge — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s.94 — Baptismal Certificate Not Prescribed Document — Held: Where the age of a victim under the POCSO Act is in dispute, courts have to take recourse to Section 94 of the JJ Act. A Baptismal Certificate is not a document prescribed there, even if the mother's deposition corroborates it. (¶36, 38) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.464 — Omission To Frame Charge Under s.376 IPC — Failure Of Justice — Held further: An omission to frame a charge under Section 376 IPC does not bar conviction where the accused knew the ingredients, had the main facts explained and a fair chance to defend, and no failure of justice was occasioned. (¶44, 54) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — POCSO Act, 2012 — s.4 — Minority Not Proved — Conviction Altered — Held further: Where minority is not proved but rape is established, the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act fails and Section 376 IPC sustains. The Appellate Court may alter the finding and sentence. Appeal partly allowed. (¶44, 45, 58)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 36In the case at hand, the Investigating Officer did not obtain the birth certificate from the school where the victim had studied or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination Board concerned or birth certificate given by a corporation, a municipal authority or a panchayat, to prove that the victim was a minor on the date of offence. The victim was also not sent for any age determination test as provided under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules or under Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act which is in pari materia with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. The said provision prescribes that in the absence of the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination Board concerned, or birth certificate given by a corporation, a municipal authority or a panchayat, the age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board. Admittedly, the victim was not subjected to any ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test. The only document available on the record for proving the age of the victim is the Baptismal Certificate issued by the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Assembly. Although the date of birth in the Baptismal Certificate finds corroboration in the deposition of P.W.-2, the mother of the victim girl, stating the girl was born on 05.03.2006, yet since the document itself is not the one prescribed under Section 94 of the JJ Act, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim in the manner required under Section 94 of the JJ Act.

Paragraph 38In Luis Caetano Viegas (supra), this Court was dealing with an issue concerning inventory proceedings for partition of inheritance of the property of common ancestors. In the said context, dealing with the issue of parentage, this Court in paragraph 9 held thus:

Acts & Sections

s.94 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015s.3 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.376 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.506 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.464 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.222 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.386 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PYNCHEMALANGAKI BAREH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an accused charged under Section 3 of the POCSO Act be convicted under Section 376 IPC where minority is not proved?Can an Appellate Court convict for an offence for which no charge was framed, without a failure of justice?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections