Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raju Pasla, was convicted by the trial court and filed a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa. During the appeal, he claimed he was a juvenile on the date of the offence (7-3-2004) as his date of birth was 12-7-1987. The High Court directed the Children's Court at Panaji to conduct an inquiry into his age. The Children's Court, after examining the appellant, his father, and considering a school leaving certificate and an ossification test report, concluded that the appellant was about 18 years of age on the date of the offence. The appellant challenged this finding. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel argued that the school leaving certificate showing date of birth 12-7-1987 should be accepted, making him 16 years and 8 months old at the time of the offence. The state argued that the ossification test indicated age 18-20 years, and the school certificate was unreliable as it was not from the first school and the father gave inconsistent statements. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the school leaving certificate was not from the first school attended, the father's statements were contradictory, and the ossification test, though giving a range, supported the finding that the appellant was about 18. The court held that the Children's Court's finding was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The appeal against the age determination was dismissed, and the main criminal appeal was to be heard separately.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Ossification Test vs. School Records - The court considered the conflict between medical evidence (ossification test indicating age 18-20) and school leaving certificate (showing date of birth 12-7-1987) - Held that the ossification test gives only a range and cannot override documentary evidence like school records, but in this case the school certificate was not reliable as it was not from the first school attended and the appellant's father gave contradictory statements - The Children's Court's finding that the appellant was about 18 years on the date of offence was upheld (Paras 7-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was a juvenile (below 18 years) on the date of commission of the offence, and whether the Children's Court's finding on age is correct.
Final Decision
The High Court upheld the Children's Court's finding that the appellant was about 18 years of age on the date of the offence, and dismissed the challenge to the age determination. The main criminal appeal remains pending for hearing on merits.
Law Points
- Juvenile age determination
- ossification test
- school leaving certificate
- benefit of doubt
- Section 2(k) and (l) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2000
