JJ Act | Radiological Age Test Can be Ordered When There is Contradiction in School Leaving Certificate and Other Evidence Regarding Age: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad HC on Thursday ruled that the courts below cannot be faulted for depending upon the medical/radiological age of the juvenile and declaring him as an adult on the basis of the evidence available, where there is contradiction between School Leaving Certificate and Other evidence regarding age.

The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma was dealing with the revision filed  under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 to set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board passed in the age determination inquiry in Misc. Application arising out of Crime under Sections 302, 120-B IPC.

In this case, the school leaving certificate, wherein the date of birth was shown as 10.08.2006, issued by the Primary School, was produced, however, the authenticity and the acceptability of that certificate was challenged by the respondent by producing a copy of pariwar register showing date of birth of juvenile as of the year 1999 as well as a driving licence showing the same year of birth. 

High Court observed that “it appears that finding the school leaving certificate quite doubtful and finding that there was no underlying document to record his age at the time of admission in the concerned institution coupled with the facts that other documents like copy of pariwar register and driving licence showed different age of the juvenile,  the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court below rightly embarked on an inquiry and radiological age was ordered to be conducted. The courts below cannot be faulted for depending upon the medical/radiological age of the juvenile and declaring him as an adult on the basis of the evidence available in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The bench stated that there were enough of reasons to discard the documented age of the juvenile and to call for an ossification test, the Board was perfectly justified in seeking evidence for determination of age and drawing its own conclusion based on the evidence available including evidence of radiological test. 

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join

In view of the above, the High Court rejected the revision. 

Case Title: Kalim v. State of U.P. and Another

Bench: Justice Jyotsna Sharma

Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 568 of 2022

Get Instant Legal Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now

Related Articles

Latest Articles