ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HEMANT GUPTA, B. R. GAVAI
RAM VIJAY SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
In this judgment, the process of age determination for the juvenile involves an initial assessment based on physical appearance when the individual is brought before the Board or Committee. If there is any doubt regarding the age, further evidence is sought, including medical tests such as ossification tests or other medical age determination methods conducted on the orders of the relevant authorities. The judgment emphasizes that such medical tests, including ossification tests, are useful guiding factors but are not conclusive or infallible, especially when the individual is significantly older, such as around 40-55 years of age, where bone structure cannot reliably indicate age (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the procedure for age determination under the applicable law and rules closely mirrors the statutory provisions, with an emphasis on the appearance-based initial assessment and the subsequent medical examination only if doubt persists (!) (!) (!) . The judgment clarifies that the medical opinion, including ossification tests, remains a guiding but not definitive factor, and the reliability of such tests diminishes with increasing age, especially beyond 30 years (!) (!) .
In the specific case discussed, the medical report indicating an age between 40-55 years was considered, and it was concluded that such a range makes it unlikely that the individual was a juvenile at the time of the incident. The court also considered other documentary evidence, such as the date of birth provided in an application for an arms license, which suggested an age of over 21 years at the relevant time. This corroborated the conclusion that the individual was not a juvenile on the date of the incident (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that age determination involves a combination of physical appearance, documentary evidence, and medical examination, with the understanding that medical tests are not conclusive but serve as guiding evidence, especially when the individual is significantly older.
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, I.
Leave granted.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.4.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Vide the said order, the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short, the ‘IPC’] was dismissed.
2. Before this Court, the appellant filed an application for bail, inter alia, on the ground that he was juvenile on the date of incident i.e. 20.7.1982. In support of plea of juvenility, the appellant relied upon family register maintained by the Panchayat, Aadhaar Card and an order passed by the High Court in the year 1982. In the said order, the High Court had granted bail on the basis of the report of the Radiologist that the age of the appellant at that time was between 15 ½ - 17 ½ years. The appellant has further stated that he had moved criminal miscellaneous application raising a claim of him being a juvenile at the time of commission of offence before the High Court but the said application was not decided and the appeal has been dismissed on merits.
3. Keeping in view the said assertion raised by the appellant, th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.