Dhananjay Nagwanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 5.7.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. (POCSO), Ambikapur, District-Surguja in Special Criminal Case No.32/2021 in between State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhananjay Nagwanshi, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the applicant for ossification test of the victim for her correct age determination.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant abducted minor victim and thereafter sexually exploited to her.

Mr.J.A.Lohani, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that the prosecutrix / victim is not minor and victim & present applicant both were married and also living as husband & wife. There is material omission and contradiction in date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the prosecution evidence. He would further submit that the applicant has moved an application for her ossification test, which was wrongly dismissed by the learned Special Judge and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, Ms Pushplata Khalkho, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, would support the impugned order and submits that proper procedure for age determination has been provided in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'Act of 2015') and the trial Court has recorded sufficient reason as necessary evidence is available. So, there is no need for ossification test of the victim and as such, the criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with revision.

Section 94 of the Act of 2015 reads as under:-

“94. Presumption and determination of age .-(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.

(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

Section 94 of the Act of 2015 relates to determination of age and it has been specifically mentioned that when the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board is available, then there is no necessity to obtain other evidence and ossification test is last resort for age determination.

In the instant case, school register is available. So, the finding recorded by the Special Judge in the impugned order is not unreasonable and as such, the order impugned is affirmed.

Accordingly, the criminal revision being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.