Rajasthan HC Partly Modifies POCSO Trial Order, Directs Summoning of Hospital Admission Ticket to Determine Victim's Age

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that rejecting a Section 91 CrPC application on technical grounds, when the accused had no prior knowledge of the document, amounted to denial of fair trial under Article 21.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has partly modified an order of the Special Judge (POCSO Cases), District Jaipur, which had rejected an accused person's application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of a hospital admission ticket. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, directed the Trial Court to summon the admission ticket from the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur, and to grant the petitioner one last opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix on that document. The petition was taken up in pursuance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), which called on High Courts to expeditiously decide long-pending matters where interim orders had stalled trials in serious offences.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Ranjeet Raigar, is facing trial before the Special Judge (POCSO Cases), Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 08/2021 for offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 376 IPC. The central factual dispute in the trial is whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident on 6 March 2020.

The prosecution relies on school records showing the victim's date of birth as 15 January 2010, which would make her a minor on the date of the alleged offence. The petitioner's case is that the prosecutrix was above eighteen years of age at the relevant time.

The petitioner came to know at a later stage that the prosecutrix had given birth to a child on 8 June 2021 at the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur, and that her age was recorded as nineteen years in the hospital's admission ticket on that date. He obtained this information through an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the Primary Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Phagi, furnished the information on 17 January 2023.

Immediately after receiving this information, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 CrPC before the Trial Court seeking production of the original admission ticket from the Community Health Centre. The Special Judge rejected the application on 25 April 2023, not on merits, but on the technical ground that the application had been filed at the final stage of the trial and that cross-examination on the age of the victim had already been completed.

The petitioner challenged that rejection before the High Court by way of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2586/2023.

The Legal Issue: Timing of a Section 91 CrPC Application and the Right to Fair Trial

The core question before Justice Dhand was whether a Trial Court can reject an application for production of a document solely because it was filed at an advanced stage of the trial, when the accused had no knowledge of the document's existence until shortly before filing the application.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded before the Trial Court on 29 February 2021, and at that point the petitioner was unaware that the prosecutrix had given birth to a child at a hospital where her age was recorded as nineteen years. That fact came to his notice only later. Once he obtained the RTI response on 17 January 2023, he moved the Section 91 CrPC application without delay.

Counsel also pointed to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which creates a presumption against the accused and places the burden on the accused to prove innocence. Given this statutory presumption, the petitioner argued, the admission ticket from the Community Health Centre was essential to his defence on the question of the victim's age. Without it, he could not effectively contest the prosecution's case.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. He submitted that the school record of the victim showed her date of birth as 15 January 2010, making her a minor at the time of the alleged incident. He contended that the application was filed at the final stage of the trial with the intent to delay disposal, and that the Trial Court had committed no error in rejecting it.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Dhand accepted the petitioner's explanation for the timing of the application. The Court found that when the victim's statements were recorded before the Trial Court on 29 February 2021, the fact that she had given birth to a child at the Community Health Centre, Phagi, where her age was noted as nineteen years, was not within the petitioner's knowledge. The information surfaced only later, and the petitioner moved the RTI route to obtain it formally. The Primary Health Officer provided the information on 17 January 2023, and the Section 91 CrPC application followed immediately. The Court held that no delay had been caused by the petitioner in filing the application.

The Court then addressed the Trial Court's reason for rejection. The Special Judge had not gone into the merits of the application at all; the rejection rested entirely on the procedural ground that cross-examination on age had already been completed. Justice Dhand held that this approach was unsustainable.

The Court articulated the governing principle: “an accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial” if a relevant fact comes to the notice of the accused or the Court at a later stage, prior to the conclusion of the trial. If that fact is relevant to a just decision of the case, the accused must be given the opportunity to produce the document.

Justice Dhand further held that denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of admissible record would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Court described the purpose of Section 91 CrPC as facilitating a fair and just resolution by ensuring relevant evidence is available to the Court, preventing destruction or tampering of documents, and assisting the Court in discovering the truth.

The Court also tied the analysis to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observing that principles of natural justice are an integral part of the right to a fair trial, and that any denial of the best available evidence or effective hearing to the accused in proving his defence would amount to denial of a free and fair trial.

One qualification was noted: the power under Section 91 CrPC must be exercised for production of evidence that would assist the Court in discovering the truth. The Court observed that the right of privacy of individuals cannot be breached at the mere asking of the accused, and that before an order for production of sensitive records such as call details or tower location data is passed, the accused must demonstrate the necessity and desirability of such evidence. In the present case, however, the document sought — the hospital admission ticket — was directly relevant to the age of the prosecutrix, which is a central issue in a POCSO trial.

Directions Issued

Justice Dhand partly accepted the petition. The Court directed the Trial Court to summon the admission ticket of the prosecutrix from the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur. Once the document is produced, the petitioner is to be granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix on the admission ticket. The Trial Court was directed to fix a date for this purpose and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Outcome

The impugned order dated 25 April 2023 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Cases), District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 08/2021 stands partly modified in terms of the directions above. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all other pending applications also stand disposed of.