Delhi High Court
Manoj @ Krishna vs State National Capital Territory ... on 1 December, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 1st DECEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.REV.P. 367/2015
MANOJ @ KRISHNA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Javed Ali, Advocate.
versus
STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI
Sachin Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner - Manoj @ Krishna to impugn the legality and correctness of an
order dated 16.03.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which it was
held that the petitioner was aged around 18 ½ years on the date of incident
/ offence and was not a juvenile. Status report is on record.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No.445/12
registered under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act at Police Station
Sarai Rohilla on 24.12.2012. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed against him. The prosecution examined various witnesses.
On 27.05.2014, an application under Rule 12(3)(B) of Juvenile Justice
Rules 2007 seeking directions for ossification test was filed. By an order
dated 08.09.2014, Medical Superintendent of DDU Hospital was directed
to conduct ossification test. Ossification test report dated 09.09.2014 was
filed on record where the age of the petitioner was opined to be in
between 22 - 25 years. The Trial Court examined Dr.Bharti Singhal, M.D.
Radiologist and Dr.Ashish Kapoor, H.O.D., Dental to prove their report
Ex.CW-1/A. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment came to the
conclusion that age of the petitioner on the date of commission of offence
i.e. 13.03.2012 was 19 ½ to 22 ½ years and allowing margin of one year
on the lower side, it was around 18 ½ years.
3. Main grievance of the petitioner is that age opined by CW-2
(Dr.Ashish Kapoor), Dentist, only on the basis of eruption of third molar
was not legally permissible as other relevant features mentioned in Modi
Medical Jurisprudence i.e. peculiarities, like decay, malposition,
overlapping or rotation, broken teeth, fillings, gaps or dentures were not
taken into consideration. Moreover, the petitioner was entitled to have
margin of two years.
4. Both CW-1 and CW-2 have categorically stated that on
09.09.2014, a Medical Board under the Chairmanship of Dr.Rakesh
Kumar was constituted. After detailed examination, the Board opined the
age of the petitioner Manoj @ Krishna between 22 - 25 years. They were
cross-examined at length but nothing material could be extracted to
discard their opinion. A comprehensive report based upon the findings
given by the physician, dentist and radiologist was considered and the age
of the petitioner was estimated to be in between 22 - 25 years. It was
categorically asserted by CW-2 that age of the petitioner could not be less
than 17 years as the third molar had erupted in his upper and lower jaws.
He was categorical to state that if the molar had erupted, the age of the
person would not be less than 17 years. He admitted the suggestion that as
per medical jurisprudence and toxicology (page No. 234), the third molar
or wisdom teeth erupts between the age of 17 - 25 years. Moreover, while
estimating the age of the petitioner, all the other features given by
physician, dentist and radiologist were taken together and the report in
question was submitted. The petitioner did not examine any expert to
cause dent in the age opined by the experts in their report dated
09.09.2014.
5. The learned Trial Court has already given margin of one year
on the lower side as prescribed under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 under which the application in
question for determination of age was moved.
6. The impugned order based upon fair appraisal of the report
and legal aspects needs no intervention.
7. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
8. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the
copy of the order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 01, 2015 / tr
