The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 in determining the age of a minor victim, the margin of error in age determination, and the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioners impugn order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as well as the order of the Appellate Court dated 21.02.2018 holding the victim girl to be a minor.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the employer of the minor victim ‘K’ and is a co-accused along with her husband in FIR No.896/2016, Police Station Rajouri Garden under Sections 325/376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO read with Section 75 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘J.J.Act, 2015’)

3. The impugned orders arise out of an issue, which arose before the CWC pertaining to payment of wages to the minor victim.

4. Since there was no document available, a Bone Ossification Test of the victim ‘K’ was conducted for her age determination. As per the Ossification Test Report, the age was estimated to be in range of 17 to 19 years, as on 05.12.2016.

5. By the impugned order dated 06.09.2017, the CWC determined the age of the Victim ‘K’ as ‘Seventeen Years’. The said order was impugned by way of an Appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.

6. By the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, the learned Court of the Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Appeal.

7. It is these two orders, which are challenged in these proceedings.

8. In the impugned order dated 06.0.2017, the CWC has held as under:-

“...........Thence, CWC, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 94(2)(iii) and 94(3) of the JJ Act, 2005 has determined girl’s age to be 17 years depending on the bone ossification test report wherein her age was estimated in the range of 17-19 years as on 05.12.2016. Thus, lower limit of the range has been fixed as girl’s age taking note of her best interest...”

9. The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), in the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, while dismissing the Appeal, has held as under:-

“9. Section 94(3) of the J.J.Act, 2015 provides that the age recorded by the Committee of the Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall for the purpose of J.J.Act, 2015 be deemed to be the true age of that person.

10. It is well settled that a hyper technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating evidence adduced in respect of plea of juvenility and where two views are possible, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. Same principle shall apply to the victim as well. In judgment dated 01.07.2013 in Jarnail Singh versus State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2010, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is hardly any difference insofar as the issue of minority is concerned between a child conflict with law and a child who is a victim of crime.”

10. Since the Revisional Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh versus State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, it would be expedient to examine the same. In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, the defence had sought to rely upon the ossification test results ignoring the evidence available from the school first attended.

11. The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) held that even though Rule The Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, Rule 12 should be the basis for determining age, even of a child who is a victim of crime. For there is hardly any difference insofar as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. The Supreme Court further explained that under Rule 12, the age of a child is ascertained by adopting the first available basis out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available would c