Section 94 Juvenile Justice Act | Ossification Test Has Been Kept At The Last Rung To Determine Age: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while denying the plea of juvenility preferred by a convict in a murder case, observed that to determine age, ossification test stands last in the order of priorities. Pertinently, Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 provides for the mode of determination of age. As per this provision, priority should be given to the date of birth certificate. In the...
The Supreme Court, while denying the plea of juvenility preferred by a convict in a murder case, observed that to determine age, ossification test stands last in the order of priorities. Pertinently, Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 provides for the mode of determination of age. As per this provision, priority should be given to the date of birth certificate. In the absence of this, the birth certificate given by a corporation shall be preferred. Only in the absence of both categories can an ossification test determine age.
“In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat.,” the Court stated in its judgment.
While making this observation, the Court also affirmed the Medical Board's opinion that age estimation based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years.
The Division bench of justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a criminal appeal of Vinod Katara, preset petitioner, who was convicted for murder committed on 10th September 1982. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. This finding was not interfered with either by the Allahabad High Court or the Supreme Court.
Notably, in 2012, the High Court, while passing an order in a Public Interest Litigation, directed the Juvenile Justice Board(s) to inquire about the convicts who might have been juveniles at the time of the incident.
Following this, even the present petitioner was subjected to a medical examination. The Medical Board conducted X-rays of the skull and sternum. The Board opined that the petitioner was around 56 years of age. Claiming that he was around 15 years of age at the time commission of the offence, petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The Court directed the Sessions Judge to examine the petitioner's claim with respect to juvenility. Therein, when the medical examination took place, it provided that the petitioner's age was between 55 to 60. However, it came with a caveat that 'that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after the age of 25 years.'
Further, the inquiry conducted by the Sessions' judge observed that, according to the contemporaneous evidence (School records), the petitioner was major on the date of the incident.
The petitioner's counsel fervently denied the inquiry report when the matter was taken up before the Top Court. The Counsel pressed that the medical examination (conducted at first instance) was correct. It was further contended that the school record was not reliable and the first medical report should be given precedence.
However, these arguments did not find favor with the Court. After perusing the relevant documents, the Court agreed with the inquiry report as well as with the medical board's opinion. The report scrutinized the admission register and transfer certificate to come to its conclusion.
“Having minutely perused the inquiry report and the evidence led during the inquiry, we are of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge that the actual date of birth of the accused petitioner is 2nd July, 1960 and the opinion of the Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is apropos and deserves to be accepted.,” the Court held.
Given these facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the petitioner's plea.
Case Title: Vinod Katara vs State Of UP 2024., WRIT PETITION(CRL.) NO(S). 121 OF 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 210