Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Epiphysis around ankle, lencem wrist, elbow and shoulder joints have appeared and completely fused. Epiphysis for iliac crest has appeared and partially fused. Radiological age is between eighteen and nineteen years."

Detenu was arrested and detained on Oct. 18, 1981. The report by the expert is dated May 3, 1982, that is nearly seven months after the date of detention. Growing Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1355 of 2019 dt. 05-03-2020 in age day by day is an involuntary process and the anatomical changes in the structure of the body continuously occur. Even on normal calculation, if seven months are deducted from the approximate age opined by the expert, in Oct., 1981 detenu was around 17 years of age, consequently the statement made in the petition turns out to be wholly true. However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side. Undoubtedly, therefore, the detenu was a young school going boy. It equally appears that there was some upheaval in the educational institutions. This young school going boy may be enthusiastic about the students' rights and on two different dates he marginally crossed the bounds of law. It passes comprehension to believe that he can be visited with drastic measure of preventive detention. One cannot treat young people, may be immature, may be even slightly misdirected, may be a little more enthusiastic, with a sledge hammer. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case the detention order was wholly unwarranted and deserved to be quashed."

101. At this stage, one can aptly refer to the case of Jaya Mala (supra) wherein it has been held ". ...However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side...."

102. By application of principles of 'margin of error' and 'benefit of doubt', the Supreme Court held the detention order of the detenu Riyaz Ahmad wholly unwarranted and quashed the same.

103. But, can it be said that both the principles are equally applicable in elopement cases as applied in Jaya Mala (supra). The answer to such question cannot be given in a straight jacket formula.

104. No doubt, as far as the applicability of principle of margin or error is concerned, it is equally applicable in cases of age determination of victim because uncertainty in medical science does not differentiate the accused and the victim. However, the principle of 'margin of error' of two years on either side as laid down by the Supreme Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1355 of 2019 dt. 05-03-2020 Court in Jaya Mala (supra) cannot be seen from the same lenses in reference to accused and the victim. It is well settled principle of criminal law that benefit of doubt should always go to the accused. Accordingly, it may be said that in case of an accused the lower side of the margin (reduced age) would be beneficial to him as he would be treated as a juvenile if assessed below 18, but while applying the principle of 'margin of error' in reference to the victim in cases of elopement, which principle is to be followed, is still undecided.

105. To settle the guiding principle in such cases is of prime importance, as the outcome of application of principle of 'margin of error' would severely affect the mental, physical, emotional and psychological well being of a girl.

106. Let us see what may be the possible outcome if one applies the principle of 'margin of error' to a victim girl in cases of elopement :

(i) If the girl's age is assessed to be between 17 and 19 in her medical examination, then by application of Jaya Mala (supra) if her age is being assessed 17, then :