MOHAMMAD SHAHJAD AMIR HASAN SHAIKH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Primacy of School Records over Ossification Tests and Mandatory Life Sentence for Remainder of Natural Life in Cases of Incestuous Rape of a Minor.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11490-DB
Decision Date: 09-03-2026
List of Laws
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 376); Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Section 94); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 35); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313)
- Facts: The appellant was convicted for the repeated rape of his minor daughter. The victim, a student of the 10th standard, disclosed the abuse after attending a ‘Police Didi’ awareness program at her school. She testified that the inappropriate touching began when she was ten years old, culminating in at least four incidents of sexual assault in the three months preceding the FIR. The appellant’s primary defense was false implication, alleging the victim was angry because he intended to discontinue her studies following her elder sister's controversial marriage. He further challenged the victim's minority, pointing to an ossification test that estimated her age between 17 and 18 years, arguing that the upper limit should be applied to treat her as an adult.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant challenged the judgment and order dated March 12, 2020, passed by the Special POCSO Court, Greater Bombay, which convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The matter came before the Bombay High Court as a criminal appeal.
- Issue: 1) Whether school records and parental admissions take primacy over medical ossification tests in determining the age of a victim under the POCSO Act. 2) Whether the sole testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction in cases of incestuous rape. 3) Whether the sentence of imprisonment for the "remainder of natural life" is mandatory for offences under Section 376(2) of the IPC.
- Holding: 1) Yes, school records and parental admissions carry greater evidentiary value than medical opinions. 2) Yes, the steadfast testimony of a victim is sufficient if it inspires confidence. 3) Yes, the statute mandates that life imprisonment for such aggravated offences means the remainder of the convict's natural life.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 35 of the Evidence Act, original school admission registers are public documents that must be given primacy. The appellant had himself sworn an affidavit at the time of school admission stating the victim's birth date and admitted her minority during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; thus, "an admitted fact need not be proved". Regarding the merits, the Court held that the testimony of a victim is on par with an "injured witness" and does not require corroboration if it is of sterling quality. The delay of one week in medical examination sufficiently explained the "old" nature of hymenal tears. Finally, the Court emphasized that incestuous rape by a father is a "ghastly act" that subverts the family as a space of security, justifying the severest condemnation without the possibility of leniency or judicial discretion in sentencing below the statutory mandate.
🔒 For Members Only