Court Upholds Documentary Evidence Over Medical Tests for Age Determination Under Juvenile Justice Act
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Special Judge of POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, which had directed an ossification test for determining the age of a minor accused, Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan. The court emphasized the statutory mandate of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prioritizes documentary evidence over medical age determination tests.
The case originated from an FIR filed on March 11, 2025, where the minor was accused under Sections 65 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, for allegedly outraging the modesty of a 15-year-old girl. The Juvenile Justice Board had initially referred the case for an ossification test despite the availability of two conflicting documentary evidences regarding the accused's date of birth.
Justice Manish Kumar, presiding over the case, highlighted that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates the use of the date of birth from school or matriculation certificates for age determination. Only in the absence of such documents should medical tests like ossification be considered. The court found that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court erred in ordering the ossification test, as the accused's age could be determined from existing documentary evidence.
The court further noted that, even considering the contradictory documents, the accused was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, thereby qualifying him as a juvenile. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal revision, quashing the previous orders and granting bail to the accused, subject to certain conditions.
This ruling reaffirms the legal precedent that documentary evidence holds precedence in juvenile age determination, ensuring adherence to the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice - Determination of age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Ossification test cannot be ordered if school or matriculation certificates are available - Preference to be given to documentary evidence over medical age determination tests.
Statutory provision(s): Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 94
Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2873890
