Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The principle is that the ossification test is not conclusive of age determination. It is settled that it is difficult to determine the exact age of the person concerned on the basis of ossification test or other tests because it does not provide us the definite age. It only gives up a reference age which generally found margin error of 2-3 years on either side. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions, has taken judicial notice of the fact that the margin of error in age ascertain by radiological examination is 2-3 years on either side. It is also settled position of law that benefit of doubt, other things being equal, at all stages goes in favour of the accused.

19. The issue regarding variation/margin of error in age on ossification test and granting benefit of such margin of error, came to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts. In the cases of Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh reported in (2009) 6 SCC 681 and Jyoti "Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2008) 15 SCC 223, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the age determined by ossification test is not a precise one and, therefore, two years margin of error/flexibility needs to be applied on either side. Of course, these judgments were in context of juvenile in conflict with law but the principle of applying "margin of error" shall be no different while considering a case of child-victim.

"12. The question which thus arises is whether the lower or the upper age recommended in the ossification test should be adopted to be the age of the prosecutrix. If benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused under all circumstances, then, it is the higher limit which has to be taken and benefit extended as has been held in the cases of Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0520 /1989 : (1989) 1 SCC 678 and Maru Ram Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:29198-DB] (10 of 19) [CRLAD-124/2021] Union of India MANU/SC/0159/1980 : (1981) 1 SCC 107. So being the case, we may consider the range of age of the prosecutrix as given in the ossification test to be 17 to 19 years. Applying the margin of error principle of two years on either side, the age of the prosecutrix could be anything between 15 to 21 years. Even if the margin of error is not on the higher side, the upper limit of the age has been estimated by the ossification test as 19 years. Giving the benefit, the age of the prosecutrix has to be held as 19 years. Similar conclusion was taken by the Court in the case of Shweta Gulati vs. State of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/2812/2018. We thus find that learned ASJ has rightly held the prosecutrix to be major at the time of incident. We find no infirmity in the findings in respect of the age of the prosecutrix."

[2025:RJ-JP:29198-DB] (15 of 19) [CRLAD-124/2021]

26. Applying aforesaid ratio of law and the well accepted method of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicolony, in the case in hand, as per prosecution, age of the victim No. 2 was stated to be 15-16 years on the date of incident. As per statement of P.W. 9 - Dr. Sriram Karwasara, age of the victim No. 2 was between 15 - 16 years on the date of incident and it has also been admitted by P.W. 9 in the cross-examination that difference in age opinion given on the basis of x-ray is upto two years. There is no statement made by the doctor (P.W. 9) that age of the victim No.2 was below 16 years. Therefore, in light of the ratio of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, margin of error of 2-3 years in age on ossification test is natural and in such circumstances, if margin error of 2-3 years in age on ossification test is taken in the age of the prosecutrix, then she was more than 18 years of age at the time of incident. Hence, in our considered opinion, conclusion arrived at by the trial court regarding age of the victim No. 2 is not sustainable.