Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: radiological in Arsad S/O Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 August, 2025Matching Fragments
8. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that as per ossification test, age of victim was estimated as falling between 15 to 16 years on the top of the Radiological Report (Ex.P/4) and on the back of the report, as per opinion of the Medical Jurist, she was 15 to 17 years. In every cases, there [2025:RJ-JP:29198-DB] (5 of 19) [CRLAD-124/2021] remain a margin of error of 2-3 years in ossification test and benefit of error should go to the accused in criminal case. Therefore, it has been urged that POCSO Act should be held as not applicable in the facts of the present case. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon following decisions :-
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:29198-DB] (11 of 19) [CRLAD-124/2021]
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajak Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 248 has held in Para 9 and 10 as under :-
"9. While it is correct that the age determined on the basis of a radiological examination may not an accurate determination and sufficient margin either way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts stated above read with the report of the radiological examination leaves room for ample doubt with regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix. The benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally, must go in favour of the Accused.
"26. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, a blind and mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be [2025:RJ-JP:29198-DB] (13 of 19) [CRLAD-124/2021] adopted solely on the basis of the medical opinion by the radiological examination. At p. 31 of Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 20th Edn., it has been stated as follows: