The High Court of Karnataka has directed the judges of all trial courts, including special courts, to ensure that the accused produced in criminal cases are not minors.
The judges of the trial court should direct the investigating officers or the accused to produce documentary proof for the age whenever the accused persons, especially in the age of 18 to 22, are produced before them, the High Court said.
Boy from Bidar
Justice C.M. Joshi issued the directions while noticing that a Bidar-based minor boy, 16 years and two months of age, who was produced before a special court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act offences, had spent three years and three months in a regular prison on the charges of allegedly raping a minor girl instead of being proceeded before a Juvenile Justice Board.
Referring to guidelines issued by the apex court, the High Court said that the trial courts, at the time of first production of the accused, should make an oral enquiry about the age, apart from about ill-treatment by the police, intimation given to the family members of the accused, reasons for the arrest, place of arrest, and ailments, if any, and to be recorded in the remand order.
The High Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the accused, now aged around 20, questioning the Bidar trial court’s order of convicting him on the charges of raping a minor girl in 2019 and sentencing him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
While setting aside his conviction and sentence, the High Court found that his age was determined, in terms of the guidelines issued by the apex court, during the pendency of trial of the case.
Victim turns hostile
While pointing out that criminal proceedings could not have been conducted against him before the regular court, the High Court pointed also pointed out that that no sufficient evidence is against him as many witnesses, including the victim, had turned hostile.
Noticing that the trial court had convicted him purely based on scientific evidence, the High Court said that collection of samples for DNA test was not carried out properly by the police and the statements of the doctors, who conducted medical tests, were also not recorded before the trial court.
The High Court also noted that he was in judicial custody for three years and three months even though the maximum detention period in special homes under the Juvenile Justice Act is three years for juvenile offenders.
