The Ossification test is a last resort under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for the determination of age: Supreme Court
Case title – Vinod Katara vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
Case no. – Writ Petition (CRL.) No(S). 121 OF 2022
Decided on – March 05, 2024
Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
This writ petition arises from a very peculiar set of facts and circumstances. The petitioner along with other three co-accused was convicted for the offence of murder by the Trial Court and were sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for life. The convicts including the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and upheld the conviction of the petitioner.
The petitioner further filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed in the year 2016.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while considering a PIL directed the Juvenile Justice Board of UP to hold enquiries for determination of age of the convicts, to detect if the convicts were juveniles at the time of the incident.
In accordance with the order, the petitioner was also subjected to examination by a Medical Board. The Medical Board conducted X-rays of the skull and sternum of the petitioner and opined that the petitioner was 56 years of age as of 10th December, 2021.
This gave a new ray of hope to the petitioner to try his case. The petitioner hence, preferred a writ petition before the apex court claiming that he was around 15 years of age on the date of the incident (i.e. 10th September, 1982) and sorted to address his claim of juvenility. The Court referred the matter to Sessions Court with pertinent directions.
Court’s observation
The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, considering the existing evidence, the date of birth of the petitioner was 2nd July, 1960 and he was major on the date of the incident. Further, the Judge noted the fact, as stated by the Chairman of the Board, that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after the age of 25 years. Hence, reported the same to the Supreme Court.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused age cannot be accurately determined by X-ray report is unsustainable as the same was confirmed by the Medical board on 10th December, 2021. He contended that the attendance register/school record of the petitioner is an unreliable piece of evidence.
He contended that as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 where reliable school record is not available; the Court can place reliance either on other documentary evidence or in its absence, on the X-ray reports which determine the age of the person.
The Counsel, thus, presented the family register wherein the year of birth of the petitioner was shown to be 1968 and the medical report dated 10th December, 2021 to be considered in deciding the case.
Submissions on behalf of the State
On the contrary, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad learned AAG submitted that the inquiry report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge is based on detailed process of collection of evidence and analysis.
He contended that the date of birth is inferred from the school records of the petitioner after thorough evaluation by the Judge and hence, the same cannot be rebutted on any ground.
Judgement
The Supreme Court considering the report of the Sessions Judge and re-examining the evidence on record held that the date of birth of the accused-petitioner is 2nd July, 1960. The Court further held that the opinion of the Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is valid.
The Court inquiring into the requisites under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act for the determination of age noted that school certificate and birth certificate occupy the priority position and only in the absence of such documents the ossification test needs to be considered. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K