Supreme Court Says Baptismal Certificate Alone Cannot Establish Minor’s Age Under JJ Act

New Delhi, September 12, 2026: The Supreme Court has ruled that a Baptismal Certificate, by itself, cannot establish the age of a POCSO victim if it is not among the documents prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the prosecution had failed to establish the victim’s minority in accordance with the statutory procedure. The prosecution had relied primarily on a Baptismal Certificate issued by the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Assembly, without producing school records, municipal birth records or other prescribed evidence, and without conducting an ossification test.

The ruling resulted in the Supreme Court setting aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the Court did not acquit him. Instead, it convicted him for rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the prosecution had independently established the offence of penetrative sexual assault.

The case concerned allegations that the appellant had sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl at Sutnga village in Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills district. The victim’s mother subsequently lodged an FIR.

The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied principally on the Baptismal Certificate to establish the girl’s age. Although the date of birth mentioned in the certificate was supported by the mother’s testimony, the Court held that the certificate did not satisfy the requirements of Section 94 of the JJ Act.

“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,” the Bench observed.

The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on its earlier decision in Luis Caetano Viegas, holding that the case was distinguishable because the present matter involved the statutory mechanism under Section 94 for determining the age of a child in proceedings under the POCSO Act.

Sexual Assault Established Through Evidence

While finding that the prosecution had not established the victim’s minority in the manner required for sustaining the POCSO conviction, the Court held that the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault was proved through the victim’s consistent testimony, medical evidence and forensic findings.

The appellant had argued that failure to establish the victim’s age should result in his acquittal. The Supreme Court rejected the plea, observing that such a consequence would not serve the interests of justice where the evidence independently established rape.

The Bench further held that the Trial Court’s failure to frame an alternative charge under Section 376 IPC did not cause a failure of justice. Referring to Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court noted that the accused had a full opportunity to defend himself and that the essential ingredients of the offence had been established.

Exercising its powers under Section 386 CrPC, the Supreme Court therefore set aside the conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC.

The appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. His conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC were also upheld.

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.

The judgment was delivered in Pynchemalangaki Bareh v. State of Meghalaya, 2026 INSC 984.

Courtesy: Verdictum