MUKARRAB ETC. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 30-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 8 S.C.R. 557 
MUKARRAB ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1119-1120 of2016) 
NOVEMBER30, 2016 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 - s. 7 A - Claim of juvenility by the appellants - Admissibility 
and reliability of medical opinion - Appellants involved in many 
cases for various offences - Instant incident occurred in 1994 -
Conviction of appellants along with others u/s. 3021149 ands. 148 
and sentenced accordingly -·Claim of juvenility raised by the 
appellants for the first time before Supreme Court - On direction of 
Supreme Court, report submitted by the trial court that the appellants 
were major on the date of the incident - On perusal thereof. issuance 
of direction to conduct ossification test - Report of mediciJl'board 
that age of both the appellants between 35-40 years on the date of. 
examination - Held: Age determination using ossification test does 
not yield accurate and precise conclusions after the examinee crosses 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the age of 30 years, as in the instant case - A blind and mechanical 
E 
view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the . 
basis of the medical opinion by the radiological examination~ Thus, 
the opinion of the medical board in determining the age of the 
appellants cannot be relied upon, so as to give benefit under the 
provisions of the Act -In the absence of other cogent evidence, the 
plea ofjuveni/ity of the appellants, rejected-Juvenile Justice Rules, 
2007 - r. 12 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149 ands. 148. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 Age determination is essential to find out 
whether or not the person claiming to be a child is below the cut- · 
off age prescribed for application of the Juvenile Justice Act. 
G 
The issue of age determination is of utmost importance as very 
few children subjected to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice 
Act have a birth certificate. As juvenile in conflict with law usually 
. do not have any documentary evidence, age determination, cannot 
be easily ascertained, specially in borderline cases. Medical 
H 
557 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A examination leaves a margin of about two years on either side 
even if ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. [Para 10) 
[563-A-B) 
1.2 From a reading of Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice 
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is clear that it 
B 
provides that when it appears to the competent authority namely, 
the Board that the person brought before it is a juvenile, the 
Board is obliged to make it clear as to the age of that person and 
for that purpose the Board shall take such evidence as may be 
necessary and then record a finding whether the person is a 
C juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. 
[Para 13) (564-B-C] 
1.3 It is well accepted fact that age determination using 
ossification test does not yield accurate and precise conclusions 
after the examinee crosses the age of 30 years, which is true in 
the instant case. The appellants have certainly crossed the age 
D of thirty years which is an important factor to be taken into account 
as age cannot be determined·with precision. [Paras 22, 26] (571- · 
H; 574-G] 
1.4 It is clear that the purpose of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 
is not to give shelter to. the accused of grave and heinous offences. 
E As regards, the medical opinion of the Medical Board determining 
the age of the appellants as between 35-40 years on the date of 
examination that is on 02.05.2016, this wide variation in the age, 
even as per medical opinion is because of the reason that it was 
now too late, because of the advanced age of the appellants to 
F 
have precise determination of his age. Such a plea of juvenility is 
raised for the first time in this Court and the same has to be 
considered on the material brought on record before this Court. 
On the basis of the age of the appellants-M and A determined 
between 35-40 years in May, 2016, giving a variation oftwo year~ 
in upper age limit i.e. age of the appellants would be 38 years. 
G Giving additional benefit oflowering their age by one year in terms 
of Rule 12(3)(b) would bring their age as 37 years as on May, 
2016. That means the appellants are supposed to be born in 1979 
and at the time of occurrence in 1994, the appellants would have 
been of around 15 years of age. [Para 23, 24](573-F-H; 574-A-B] 
H 
1.5 Having reg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.