NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 278

K. M. JOSEPH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.Basant, Sr.Adv., Mr. Vishnu P., Adv., Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv., Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv., Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv., Mr. Risvi Muhammed, Adv., Mr. Durgesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The margin of error in the ossification test refers to the range within which the estimated age of an individual may vary due to biological variability and measurement limitations. This margin acknowledges that the test's results are not perfectly precise and can be influenced by individual differences in bone development and other factors. Typically, the margin of error is expressed as a range of years, indicating that the actual age could be slightly younger or older than the estimated age provided by the test (!) . Recognizing this variability is crucial in legal contexts, especially when age determination impacts juvenile or adult status, as it ensures that the results are interpreted with appropriate caution and in conjunction with other evidence. The margin of error thus serves as a safeguard against over-reliance on the test's findings as definitive proof of age, emphasizing the need for a holistic assessment that considers all relevant factors (!) .

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

This is an application under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“2015 Act”) requesting this Court to hold that the applicant, who is a convict for committing offences under Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“1860 Code”) was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. Simultaneous prayer of the applicant is for his release from custody on the ground of having served more than the maximum punishment permissible under the Act. The applicant has been sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by a judgment and order dated 19th February 1998 and 23rd February 1998 respectively. This application has been taken out in connection with a petition for review of the order by which his conviction and sentence was sustained by this Court after confirmation by the High Court. The review petition of the applicant was also dismissed on 24th November 2000. The applicant, along with two other offenders (Jitu and Raju) were tried for commission of offe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 278

K. M. JOSEPH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROYNARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY – AppellantVersusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent

Cases Referred (33)

K. M. JOSEPH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent