P.SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY
The presumption that a school certificate records the true date of birth is rebuttable and does not apply automatically.
Yes. The presumption that a school certificate records the true date of birth is rebuttable and does not apply automatically. Where there is doubt about the genuineness of the entries, the presumption cannot be applied automatically, and here the mother admitted that the Headmaster himself had written a date at the time of admission. (¶12, 13)
Headnote
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.6 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.366 — Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — s.9 — Age of the prosecutrix — School records — Ossification test — Benefit of doubt —
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.6 — Age of the prosecutrix — Foundational fact to be proved —
Held: Where the age of the prosecutrix is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, her consent is not immaterial and the charge fails; on a failure of proof she must be held to be a major. (¶11, 17)
Evidence — School certificate — Presumption rebuttable —
Held further: The presumption that a school certificate records the true date of birth is rebuttable and cannot be applied automatically where the parents' own evidence shows the entry is wrong. (¶12, 13)
Evidence — Birth certificate — Identity of the child to be established —
Held further: A birth certificate that does not name the child and carries an address not tallying with the parent's cannot be held to relate to the prosecutrix merely because the parents' names are similar. (¶14)
Evidence — Ossification test — Two-year margin either way —
Held further: An ossification finding carries a margin of two years on either side and cannot by itself fix the age. Conviction set aside and the accused acquitted. (¶14, 18)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 12The evidence of the medical officer clearly shows that her hymen was ruptured, the examination also indicates that P.W.3 was subjected to sexual intercourse. This fact has been established by the prosecution. A perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.3 indicates that it is a clear case of consent. Now, it is in this backdrop, whether P.W.3 is minor at the relevant point of time has to be seen. As far as the determination of the age, normally the school records will be given first preference and a presumption is attached that the certificate from the school regarding the date of birth is the original date of birth. Such presumption is also rebuttable like any other statutory presumption. When there is doubt with regard to the genuineness of the entries made in the records with regard to the age, the presumption attached to the school certificate and the birth certificate with regard to the age cannot be applied automatically. Though the prosecution has produced many documents to prove the age of the P.W.3 to show that she is below 18 years, the Ex.P.21, Higher secondary course certificate with regard to State Board of School Examinations shows that she has completed Plus 2 in March 2016. This school certificate also indicates that her date of birth was 01.06.1999. Similarly, in the Transfer certificate Ex.P.22, the date of birth of P.W.3 was mentioned as 01.06.1999.
Paragraph 13It is further relevant to note that P.W.3 in her evidence has denied the age mentioned in the school records. According to her, she was born only on 22.12.1999 and Ex.P.19 birth certificate was also filed to show that one female child was born to Marappan and Malliga, but a perusal of the Ex.P.19 would show that the name of the female child was not found, though the name of the father is shown as Marappan and the address is shown as Nedungaduthottam, Peruamapalayam, Ayyampalayam, whereas P.W.1 in his evidence does not state that Perumapalayam is situated within Ayyampalayam. He never stated that he was the resident of Nedungaduthottam. Therefore, when this fact was not established, it cannot be concluded that Ex.P.19 relates only to the birth of P.W.3. This court has to come to such a conclusion not only for such a small inconsistency as pointed out above, but also in view of the other factors. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 themselves create serious doubt about the age of P.W.3 as to whether it is correctly reflected in the school certificate or in her birth certificate. P.W.1 in his evidence would submit that her daughter was born in the year 1998, though P.W.2 mother denied the same and she has admitted that in the school certificate, the correct age of her daughter P.W.3 was not reflected. In her evidence, P.W.2 has admitted that at the time of admission of P.W.3 in the school, the Headmaster himself has written some date in the school records. Therefore, the school certificate relied on by the prosecution does not reflect the correct age even as per her mother. Therefore, the presumption attached to this document cannot be applied automatically.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of P.SARAVANAN v. STATE REP. BY — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India