Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court, in Shankar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 314), has emphasized the need for extensive legal training of investigating officers dealing with cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and matters involving juveniles. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain made this observation while granting bail to an accused after finding that the statutory procedure for determining the victim’s age had not been followed during the investigation.

The case arose from a prosecution under the POCSO Act in which the age of the victim was seriously disputed. While the victim’s Jan Aadhaar Card reflected her age as 18 years, the complainant asserted that the doctor had assessed her age between 15 and 16 years. The victim herself stated in her testimony that the doctor had estimated her age to be between 18 and 19 years. Since no reliable documentary proof regarding her age was produced, the investigating agency relied upon an ossification test conducted by a Medical Officer of the Community Health Centre (CHC), Khajuwala, Bikaner.

The High Court examined whether this procedure complied with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prescribes the manner in which the age of a child is to be determined. Finding procedural lapses, the Court granted bail and also issued important directions regarding police training.

Arguments of the Parties:

The accused argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the victim’s age in accordance with the statutory procedure. It was submitted that there was no documentary evidence proving that the victim was a minor. The defence pointed out that the Jan Aadhaar Card reflected the victim’s age as 18 years and that even the victim’s own testimony did not support the prosecution’s claim regarding minority.

It was further argued that the police had relied upon an ossification test conducted by a Medical Officer instead of obtaining an opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board as required under the applicable legal framework. Therefore, the determination of age was legally unsustainable and the issue required proper examination during trial.

The State opposed the bail application by relying upon the medical opinion estimating the victim’s age between 15 and 18 years. It contended that the material collected during investigation justified continuation of the prosecution and that the question regarding the exact age of the victim could be determined during the course of the trial.

Court’s Judgment:

Allowing the bail application, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the determination of the victim’s age in the present case was not carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The Court noted that no documentary evidence establishing the victim’s age had been placed on record. Instead, the investigating agency relied solely upon an ossification test conducted by a Medical Officer attached to a Community Health Centre. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that such a procedure was inconsistent with the statutory framework governing age determination.

Referring to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court reiterated that documentary evidence relating to the child’s age must be considered first. Only when such documents are unavailable can medical opinion be sought, and even then, the opinion must ordinarily be furnished by a duly constituted Medical Board rather than an individual Medical Officer.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shah Nawaj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which clarify that ossification tests are only a measure of last resort where documentary proof is unavailable. The Court further observed that medical examination by a Medical Board forms part of the statutory safeguard intended to ensure fairness and accuracy in determining age.

Justice Jain remarked that the investigating agency’s failure to follow the mandatory legal procedure reflected a lack of awareness of the statutory provisions governing investigations under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court observed that such procedural lapses adversely affect the criminal justice system and may ultimately weaken the prosecution case.

The Court also noted that the trial court bears a responsibility to identify such defects at the earliest stage so that they may be rectified during investigation. Once the trial commences, however, many procedural defects become difficult or impossible to cure.

While clarifying that the issue of the victim’s age would ultimately be decided during trial, the Court considered the disputed age, absence of proper documentary proof, and the procedural irregularity in obtaining the medical opinion as relevant factors while granting bail.

Before concluding the matter, the High Court expressed its expectation that the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, would take appropriate steps to impart extensive legal training to investigating officers handling POCSO cases and matters relating to juveniles. The Court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the DGP so that investigating officers are made aware of the mandatory statutory provisions governing age determination.

The judgment highlights the importance of strict compliance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and reinforces that proper investigation is essential to ensure fairness both to victims and accused persons. It also underscores the need for continuous legal training of police officers to prevent procedural lapses that may affect the administration of criminal justice.