The Delhi High Court has held that ossification test is not conclusive of age determination, stating that “It is settled that it is difficult to determine the exact age of the person concerned on the basis of ossification test or other tests.”
The bench presided by Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar passed an order in the case titled Manoj Kumar v. State.
The facts of the case were that the wife of the petitioner/applicant made a complaint alleging therein that the petitioner/applicant who is her husband had kidnapped her younger sister aged 13 years and kept her in captivity and raped her. The petitioner/applicant was arrested.
As no documents relating to the age of the victim could come on record, therefore, in 2019 her ossification test was conducted and as per the ossification test report the age of the victim was found to be between 18 years to 21 years.
The application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the petitioner.
As contended by the petitioner that the victim was major on the date of the incident. He further submitted that no allegations have been made by the victim against the petitioner/applicant. She has not even supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the victim and the petitioner/applicant have now married and are have a one-and-a-half-year-old daughter.
The defendants alleged that the allegations against the petitioner/applicant are grave and serious in nature.
The HC observed that the Supreme Court, in several decisions has taken judicial notice of the fact that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side.
The High Court held that the date of incident is 16.03.2016 and the ossification test was done on 10.06.2019 i.e. after 3 years of the date of the incident. As per ossification test, in the instant case, the age of the victim has been found to be between 18 to 21 years.
So, applying the margin of error principle, of two years on either side, the age could be between 16 to 23 years. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt of 3 years to the petitioner, the age of the victim was taken as 20 years.
The bench took note of the facts that the victim has not supported the case of the complainant / prosecution and has not made any allegations against the him in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The victim has even refused to go to her parents’ house.
The Court granted Bail to the petitioner/applicant on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety.
Read the order:
<
Share this Document :Picture Source :
