Whether ossification test shall be preferred over matriculation certificate as appropriate method to

determine the age of juvenile?

Ossification test is basically an inferential study into the correlation between age and bone density. Our
body goes with biological change every day this biological changes cannot be proved by the
matriculation certificate or any piece of paper baring date of birth. Many a times person change their
original age in certificate to enjoy the government job for longer period of time. Documentary
proves can be easily manipulated. Whereas by ossification test we will be able to know the real
age of person as it is scientific method to know the age. It puts the documents about the scientific
proof which sets the primacy of the certificate.
Ossification give the scientific prove of the age so it should be preferred over matriculation.
Case: in this case there was difference between the age given in certificate and age determine
through ossification.

the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judge claiming the benefit of a
separate trial according to the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act alleging that he was a
Juvenile on the date of occurrence. The application was opposed by the prosecution. It
was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner accused had completed the
age of 18 years on the date of occurrence and as such, he was liable to be tried Jointly
along with the other accused persons. The learned Judge made an inquiry in order to
ascertain the age of the accused petitioner on the date of commission of the offence.
During the Inquiry, the accused petitioner examined one witness who happens to be the
headmaster of the school where the petitioner claims to have been admitted as a student.
The witness deposed with reference to the relevant admission register and formally
proved the writings in that register. As per that admission register, the date of birth of the
accused petitioner was recorded as 13 December, 1978. According to the Headmaster's
evidence, the said date was recorded on the basis of declaration of the guardian of the
petitioner at the time of his admission in the admission form. The Headmaster did not,
however, have any independent knowledge regarding the age of the petitioner. On behalf
of the prosecution the voters' list of the relevant Assembly Constituency was placed before
the Judge. Accord-Ing to the entries in serial No.623 of part 137 of the said voters' list, the
petitioner was aged 19 years as on 1.1.93. If one goes by the admission register, the
petitioner would have completed just 13 years 9 months on 17.3.92. the date of
commission of the offence, while if one goes by the voters' list, the petitioner would have
completed 18 years on the relevant date. In other words, on the question of age of the
petitioner the admission register and the voters' list contradict each other. No other
evidence was, however, adduced by either party during that inquiry. The learned Judge
observed that both the admission register and the voters' list were based upon the
declaration of the parents of the petitioner. But he preferred the voters' list to the
admission register for the purpose of coming to a finding regarding the age of the
petitioner as on the date of commission of the offence, because he was of the view that the
voters' list was a public document having been prepared by the proper authority of the
Government specially empowered to verify the age of a voter and accordingly, by hts order
No. 11 dated 19.2.94, he rejected the contention of the petitioner to the effect that he was
a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act and as such, was entitled to be
dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. This order was challenged on behalf of the
petitioner accused in an earlier revision being criminal revision No. 191 of 1994 before
this court and His Lordship, N.A. Chowdhury, J by order date 2.2.95 set aside that order
and directed the trial court to send the petitioner to a Government hospital for
his ossification test and consider the medical report and medical evidence and also to
consider the other materials and determine the age of the petitioner.

3. Pursuant to this order of this court, the petitioner was sent to a Government hospital
for his ossification lest which was held on 20.7-95. According to
the ossification test report, the petitioner was aged between 20 and 21 years on the date
of examination. If one goes by this report, the petitioner would have been aged between
16 years 8 months and 17 years 8 months on 17.3.92, the date of commission of the
offence. The learned Judge, who proceeded to determine the age afresh on the basis of the
materials already on record and the new material, that is to say,
the ossification test report was of the view that as there was clear discrepancy between
the evidence.afforded by the school register as well as the voters' list regarding the age of
the petitioner which were based on the statement of the petitioners' parents, no reliance
could be placed on either of them. The learned Judge relied on
the ossification test report and come to a finding that the accused petitioner was aged
more than 16 years at the time of commission of the offence and accordingly by order No.
26 dated 13.9.95, the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the accused petitioner to be
dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act. Being aggrieved by this order, the accused
petitioner has come up in the present revision