The Supreme Court docket mentioned on Thursday that the ossification check carried out on an accused on the age of 55 couldn’t be thought-about conclusive in declaring him a minor on the date of the incident within the absence of dependable medical proof.
A bench consisting of judges RF Nariman, Hemant Gupta and BR Gavai mentioned that when ossification exams can’t give dependable and dependable outcomes, such a check can’t function a foundation for figuring out the age of the particular person involved. on the date of the incident.
“Due to this fact, within the absence of any dependable and reliable medical proof to know the age of the appellant (accused), the ossification check carried out in 2020 when the appellant was 55 can’t be concluding to declare it juvenile on the date of the incident, ”he declared in his verdict.
The decision got here on an enchantment from a homicide convict difficult the April 2020 verdict of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket, which upheld his conviction. Ram Vijay Singh filed a petition in courtroom stating that he was a minor on the date of the incident on July 20, 1982.
In help of his plea, Singh relied on the household register saved by the panchayat, his Aadhaar card and an order made by the Excessive Court docket in 1982, granted him bail primarily based on the radiologist’s report based on which appellant’s age on that date time was between 15 and 17 years outdated.
The upper courtroom famous that there was a point out of a single barrel pistol granted to Singh on July 24, 1982, just a few days after the incident. In Column 2 of the request, Singh supplied his date of delivery as December 30, 1961.
He mentioned that when an individual is round 18, the ossification check will be thought-about related in figuring out the approximate age of an individual in battle with the legislation. Nonetheless, when the particular person is between 40 and 55 years outdated, bone construction can’t be useful in figuring out age.
On the facet of the accused’s age, the bench thought-about his date of delivery to acquire a weapons license, granted after the day of the incident. Dismissing the enchantment, the judiciary mentioned: “It’s not mandatory for the prosecution to query all witnesses who might have witnessed the occasion. It’s the high quality of the proof that’s related within the felony trial. and never the amount. “