The main legal point established is the reliance on medical opinion and scientific evidence in determining juvenility, and the rejection of speculative documentary evidence.

Siddharth Mridul, J.

CRL.M.A.12912/2012

1. The present order will dispose of the above application under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act, for short) read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Rules, for short). The application has been filed by Nazir, who has been convicted under Section 363, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default thereof simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 363 IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default thereof simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

2. By way of order dated 27.07.2012 production warrant was issued for appearance of Nazir. He was produced in Court on 29.08.2012 and had stated that he has an elder brother, who had got married about one and a half year back. He also stated that he has three younger sisters and that none of them have been to school. As per the nominal roll the age of the applicant/appellant is about 22years. The FIR was registered in the year 2009. By order dated 29.08.2012, a preliminary inquiry was directed to be conducted by the State to verify the age of the applicant/appellant. Status report was received and thereupon it was directed that an inquiry is to be conducted by the trial court in terms of Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12, to ascertain the age of the appellant at the time of the commission of the offence. Trial court records were transmitted for the said purpose.

3. Mr. Suresh Chand Rajan, Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (NDPS)-III, directed that a medical board be constituted and an ossification test be conducted. The ossification test was conducted on 26.10.2012. Mr. Rajan has submitted the inquiry report. In the concluding paragraph, he has recorded his opinion that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence.

4. After the copy of the report was received, along with the evidence and material, the same was circulated and made available to the counsel for the appellant and the State. We have also heard the learned counsel to determine and decide whether the report should be accepted and to dispose of the application.

5. The trial judge has examined 6 witnesses to ascertain the age of the appellant. CW-1 to CW-5 are doctors who have assessed the appellant on the basis of general physical, dental and radiological examinations. CW-1 Dr. Nidhi Madan has deposed that on examination of the appellant, she was of the opinion that the appellant was not less than 17 years. However she could not determine the upper limit and the matter was referred to the board for final opinion. CW-2 Dr. Rakesh Kumar is a radiologist and has stated that on examination of different bones and after performing general physical, dental and radiological examination, he was of the opinion that the age of the appellant was about 20-22 years on the date of examination. CW-3 Dr. Sunil Kakkar is the Chairman of the medical board constituted for determination of the age of the appellant. He has stated that the appellant was examined by the members of the board dentally and physically and they submitted their report. He has perused the same and was of the final opinion that the age of the appellant was about 20-22 years on the date of examination. CW-4 Dr. Rishi Kanava is a physician and he has deposed that the appellant was examined dentally and physically by the board an