Ahmedabad: Should the rape accused in a Pocso case be tried as a juvenile or an adult? A single disputed Instagram message—its date and, crucially, who received it—has become the pivot on which an Anand Pocso prosecution now turns after Gujarat High Court sent the matter back to Juvenile Justice Board for a fresh forensic opinion that could determine whether one of the accused faces trial as an adult or a minor boy.The case stems from a 2023 FIR lodged by a minor girl’s father with Anand police, accusing two teenagers of rape and sexual harassment of his daughter. The allegations include rape in Feb 2023 and subsequent harassment through Instagram messages. One accused, born in 2003, was slated to be tried before a special Pocso court. The second accused, born on July 15, 2005, sought adjudication before Juvenile Justice Board, contending he was under 18—“17 years and seven months”—when the alleged physical abuse occurred.In Jan 2024, Children’s Court functioning as a Pocso court held that the younger accused should be treated as an adult, relying on an alleged last objectionable message dated July 22, 2023, when he was “18 years and seven days” old. Treating the alleged physical abuse and online harassment as a continuous offence, the court considered the last incident as decisive and ordered an adult trial.The accused’s father then moved Gujarat High Court, which in Oct 2024 directed Juvenile Justice Board to determine the accused’s age on the final date of the offence—tied to the last message—and to consider the forensic report. On the basis of the FSL report, the last message from the accused’s mobile phone was taken to have been sent a week after he attained majority, and trial proceedings against both accused continued before the special Pocso court, where the FSL officer was examined and cross-examined.Before the trial concluded, the accused again approached HC asserting juvenility, citing what emerged during the evidence stage. His counsel relied on the FSL report and the officer’s deposition to argue that although the timestamp is July 22, 2023, the report does not clarify whether the message was sent to the victim or to someone else. The FSL officer told the trial court that the Board had not asked that specific query, and therefore the report did not address the recipient.Holding that the uncertainty over who received the final message undermined the basis for fixing the “final date” of the offence, HC remanded the issue to Juvenile Justice Board for a fresh exercise. It stated, “The Juvenile Justice Board is directed to file a fresh report after getting an opinion of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory with regard to the final date of commission of offence and on the date of the applicant.” The court ordered the process to be completed within two weeks.
