Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77877 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10188 of 2025 Applicant :- Bachchu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sangeeta Shukla,Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for applicant-Bachchu Singh, who is the first informant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today, is taken on record. 3. Perused the record. 4. Applicant-Bachchu Singh, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura on the application (Paper No. 16 Kha) filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 384 of 2024 (State Vs. Sachin), arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Jamunapar, District-Mathura. 5. By means of order impugned, Court below has directed that medical determination of the age of victim be conducted. 6. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haaryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, has held that the age of the child/prosecutrix/victim under the POCSO Act can be determined only in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. However, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has now been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2015). By reason of above, the age of the child/prosecutrix/victim under the POCSO Act can be determined only with reference to the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act of 2015. The aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court has further been reiterated in (1) Mahadeo Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 637 and (2) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 773. 7. It is then submitted by the learned A.G.A. that as per the scheme of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act of 2015, the same operate in a preferential manner. Meaning thereby that the Court shall proceed to determine the age of the child/prosecutrix/victim, with reference to the provisions contained in Sub-Section-1 have to be applied first and in absence of any document recognized under Section 94(2)(i) reliance shall be placed upon the documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(ii) of Act of 2015. Only when no document mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) and 94(2)(ii) is available that Court can resort to the provisions contained in Section 94(2)(iii) i.e. to get the medical determination of age of the prosecutrix/victim/child. 8. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that medical determination of age of the child/prosecutrix/victim can be done by conducting two test; (A). Radiological test and (B). Bone Aging Ossification Test. Referring to the documents on record, which is on record and is at page 40 of the paper book (Certificate regarding age of the prosecutrix issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura). Learned A.G.A. submits that the said certificate has been issued only on the basis of radiological report. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no illegality or infirmity can be attached to the order impugned. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned does not suffers any jurisdictional error and therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State-Opposite Party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly born out form the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for the applicant with reference to the record at this stage. However, it is provided that the medical determination of age of the prosecutrix shall be got conducted by conducting the radiological test as well as Bone Aging Ossification Test of the prosecutrix. 11. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands finally disposed off. Order Date :- 13.5.2025/Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad