Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xi) Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015."

14. The Hon'ble Court, referring to the fact that there was no other document contradicting the date of birth as shown in the matriculation certificate, held that the medical evidence is not required and upheld the order of the Hon'ble High Court which sustained the judgment of the Sessions Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board.

16. In the above circumstances, an inquiry into the age determination was directed and several witnesses were examined. CW1-father of juvenile admitted that he knows about the date of birth of his son only on the basis of entry in the school leaving certificate and that he does not remember his exact date of birth. CW2-Mariyam, Principal of the school, though, verified the fact that the transfer certificate was issued by the school and also produced the S.R. register, the attendance register etc., however, she stated that she was unaware of the basis of entry of date of birth as 10.08.2006 and the reasons for juvenile's admission in that institutions in Class-IInd. CW3-the Ex-principal of that school stated that at the time of his admission, he recorded the age of the juvenile and the date of birth as 10.08.2006 as told by his elder brother, the only person who accompanied the juvenile at the time of his admission. Admittedly, admission register was never produced. The medical examination and the X-ray of the juvenile indicated that his radiological age was about 19 years. The radiologist namely, Dr. Kuldeep Singh found that the bones of wrist, elbow, knees and clavicle were all fused.

17. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that finding the school leaving certificate quite doubtful and finding that there was no underlying document to record his age at the time of admission in the concerned institution coupled with the facts that other documents like copy of pariwar register and driving licence showed different age of the juvenile, in my view, the Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Appellate Court below rightly embarked on an inquiry and radiological age was ordered to be conducted. The courts below cannot be faulted for depending upon the medical/radiological age of the juvenile and declaring him as an adult on the basis of the evidence available in the facts and circumstance of the case. Before this Court, copy of bail order passed in Bail Application No. 70/2022 dated 15.01.2022 passed by the Incharge, Sessions Judge, Amroha and copy of the order passed by this Court on 24.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7301 of 2022 moved on behalf of the present revisionist, who claim himself to be a juvenile, has been brought on record. In the bail application moved before the Sessions Judge, the applicant-revisionist has shown his age as 19 years, which goes against his own claim.

18. In my view, there were enough of reasons to discard the documented age of the juvenile and to call for ossification test, the Board was perfectly justified in seeking evidence for determination of age and drawing its own conclusion based on the evidence available including evidence of radiological test. The Board as well as appellate court both have given a concurrent finding which is not liable to be disturbed by this Court while exercising revisional powers under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, therefore, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.