Back
Allahabad HC: Documents Trump Bones – No for Proven Minors
In a decisive ruling on age determination in sensitive POCSO cases, the has struck down orders mandating an invasive for an alleged minor offender. Justice Manish Kumar held that existing school and matriculation records sufficiently proved the accused's age under 16, rendering medical tests unnecessary under (JJ Act). The court allowed the filed by Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan (minor), through his father, quashed lower court decisions, and granted bail with strict safeguards.
From Village Threat to Courtroom Age Battle
The case stems from an FIR lodged on , at , under and . The complainant alleged that the revisionist forcibly outraged the modesty of his 15-year-old daughter and threatened to kill her family if she spoke out. A neighbor reportedly saw the accused fleeing the scene.
As proceedings began, the revisionist's minor status became the flashpoint. His High School marksheet listed a birthdate of , making him 15 years, 2 months, and 10 days old at the incident. Contradictorily, a Class V scholar register from his primary school showed , pushing his age to 15 years, 8 months, and 29 days. Despite both documents confirming he was under 16, the , on , ordered an , flouting the statutory hierarchy. The upheld this on , citing document conflicts, prompting the High Court revision.
Defense: Stick to the Statute, Skip the Scan
The revisionist's counsel, including and , hammered on Section 94 JJ Act's clear priority: first, matriculation or school certificates; second, birth certificates from municipal bodies; and only third, medical tests like ossification in their absence. With two qualifying documents on record—both pegging the boy below 16—medical intervention was impermissible. They argued the JJB's referral breached the law's "only" proviso in clause (iii), and the appellate court's affirmation ignored this mandate.
Prosecution: Test to be Sure?
The State, via learned AGA, defended the ossification order as prudent for accurate age verification amid conflicting records. However, the counsel conceded the statutory framework when pressed, unable to counter Section 94's rigid sequence.
Decoding Section 94: Paper Proof Over Bone Scans
Justice Manish Kumar meticulously parsed Section 94, emphasizing its sequential safeguards against unreliable medical tests, which carry margins of error. The court noted no precedents were directly cited, but the provision's text was dispositive: Clause (i) prioritizes school/matriculation certificates, with ossification as a last resort marked by "only." Even picking the older date (), the revisionist remained a minor under 16—triggering juvenile protections without further probing.
This aligns with broader judicial caution on ossification tests, often criticized for inaccuracy in adolescence, as echoed in legal commentary on the judgment.
Key Observations from the Bench
" , which deals with presumption and determination of age, clearly provides that for the purpose of age determination, the following order of preference is to be followed..."
"...even if any of the document is taken into consideration, the only fact that comes out is that the applicant was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the Juvenile Justice Board to direct an ..."
"It is to be noticed that clause (iii) of Section 94 begins with the word 'Only' i.e to say the other age determination test could be resorted to only in absence of any document mentioned in clause (i) and (ii) and not otherwise."
Bail with Strings: A Minor's Fresh Start
The revision was allowed on . Both were set aside, and the revisionist was enlarged on bail via his father's personal bond and two sureties. Conditions include monthly reporting to the District Probation Officer for a year, an affidavit ensuring no criminal associations, witness protection, and court attendance—or risk bail cancellation.
This ruling reinforces statutory discipline in juvenile cases, potentially curbing routine medical tests in POCSO and beyond. It signals to lower forums: when documents speak, bones stay silent, safeguarding minors from unnecessary trauma while upholding justice.
