The court ruled on age estimation in sexual assault cases, denying dual benefits derived from medico-legal standards based on prior judgments.

Heard on I.A. No.2490/2025, which is an application under Section

389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Bal Krishna Rajput.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the ossification report given by Dr. Rajneesh Singhi (PW-8), vide Ex.P-15, makes a mention of lower range to be 14 and upper range to be 16 years and, then referring to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State of NCT of Delhi in CRL. REF.2/2024 , where date of judgment reserved is 25.04.2024 and date of judgment delivered is 02.07.2024.

Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi held in para 46 that :-

"46. As an upshot of our foregoing discussion, the Reference is answered as under: -

(i) Whether in POCSO cases, the Court is required to consider the lower side of the age estimation report, or the upper side of the age estimation report of a victim in cases where the age of the victim is proved Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH through bone age ossification test?

Ans: In such cases of sexual assault, wherever, the court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on ‘bone age ossification report’, the upper age given in ‘reference range’ be considered as age of the victim.

(ii) Whether the principle of ‘margin of error’ is to be applicable or not in cases under the POCSO Act where the age of a victim is to be proved through bone age ossification test.

Ans: Yes. The margin of error of two years is further required to be applied."

Thus, it is submitted that not only the upper age limit in the range is to be taken into consideration, but Delhi High Court has held that margin of error of two years is further required to be applied. However, there is no persuasive material to give both the benefits to an accused either in the form of medico legal textbook or opinion of a medico legal expert. Therefore, in our opinion, both the benefits cannot be extended especially when a particular range is given by the radiologist and it is true that in the interest of the accused upper limit may be taken into consideration, but after considering the upper limit already giving a range of two years between the lower proximity and the higher proximity, no further relaxation can be given and, therefore, we are in respectful disagreement with the findings of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.

Therefore, in our opinion that this judgment having not considered the medico legal aspects in the correct perspective cannot be treated as a precedent.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH At this Stage, Shri Gupta prays for and is allowed to withdraw the I.A.

No.2490/2025, which is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Bal Krishna Rajput.

Accordingly, I.A. No.2490/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

He prays for liberty. His prayer is denied.