SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shweta Gulati & Anr. vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 August, 2018

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 28th May, 2018
Judgment delivered on: 08th August, 2018

+ CRL.REV. P.195/2018
SHWETA GULATI ANR. ….. Petitioners

versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Vikram Dua with Mr Vinod Kumar
For the Respondent : Mr Mukesh Kumar, APP.
SI Sanjeet Singh, PS Rajouri Garden

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioners impugn order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the
Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as well as the order of the Appellate
Court dated 21.02.2018 holding the victim girl to be a minor.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the employer of the minor victim ‘K’ and is a
co-accused along with her husband in FIR No.896/2016, Police
Station Rajouri Garden under Sections 325/376 IPC and Section 6
POCSO read with Section 75 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘J.J.Act, 2015’)

3. The impugned orders arise out of an issue, which arose before
the CWC pertaining to payment of wages to the minor victim.

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 1 of 7

4. Since there was no document available, a Bone Ossification
Test of the victim ‘K’ was conducted for her age determination. As
per the Ossification Test Report, the age was estimated to be in range
of 17 to 19 years, as on 05.12.2016.

5. By the impugned order dated 06.09.2017, the CWC determined
the age of the Victim ‘K’ as ‘Seventeen Years’. The said order was
impugned by way of an Appeal before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge.

6. By the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, the learned Court of
the Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Appeal.

7. It is these two orders, which are challenged in these
proceedings.

8. In the impugned order dated 06.0.2017, the CWC has held as
under:-

“………..Thence, CWC, in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 94(2)(iii) and 94(3) of the JJ Act, 2005 has
determined girl’s age to be 17 years depending on the
bone ossification test report wherein her age was
estimated in the range of 17-19 years as on 05.12.2016.
Thus, lower limit of the range has been fixed as girl’s age
taking note of her best interest…”

9. The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), in the
impugned order dated 21.02.2018, while dismissing the Appeal, has

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 2 of 7
held as under:-

“9. Section 94(3) of the J.J.Act, 2015 provides that the
age recorded by the Committee of the Board to be the
age of the person so brought before it shall for the
purpose of J.J.Act, 2015 be deemed to be the true age of
that person.

10. It is well settled that a hyper technical approach
should not be adopted while appreciating evidence
adduced in respect of plea of juvenility and where two
views are possible, the Court should lean in favour of
holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases.
Same principle shall apply to the victim as well. In
judgment dated 01.07.2013 in Jarnail Singh versus State
of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2010, it has
been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
there is hardly any difference insofar as the issue of
minority is concerned between a child conflict with law
and a child who is a victim of crime.”

10. Since the Revisional Court in the impugned judgment has relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh versus State
of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, it would be expedient to examine the
same. In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, the defence
had sought to rely upon the ossification test results ignoring the
evidence available from the school first attended.

11. The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) held that even
though Rule1 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a

1 The Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 3 of 7
child in conflict with law, Rule 12 should be the basis for determining
age, even of a child who is a victim of crime. For there is hardly any
difference insofar as the issue of minority is concerned, between a
child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. The
Supreme Court further explained that under Rule 12, the age of a
child is ascertained by adopting the first available basis out of a
number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of
options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding
clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a
subsequent clause. The highest rated option available would
conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule
12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the child concerned
is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no
other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said
certificate, Rule 12(3) envisages consideration of the date of birth
entered in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry
of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable
to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be
relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates
reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal
authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available,
then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration
for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate
would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the
absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 4 of 7
determination of age of the child concerned, on the basis of medical
opinion.

12. In the facts of the present case none of the documents
mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a) are available so there is no question of
preferring an ossification test report over the said documents. It may
be noticed that Section 94 of the J.J.Act, 2015 is in similar terms to
Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules.

13. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether,
while determining the age of the victim, the benefit of doubt in age
estimated by the bone ossification test is to go to the accused or the
victim.

14. The settled principle is that the ossification test is not
conclusive of age determination. It is settled that it is difficult to
determine the exact age of the person concerned on the basis of
ossification test or other tests. The Supreme Court, in several
decisions, has taken judicial notice of the fact that the margin of error
in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either
side.2

15. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether
the lower of the age or the higher of the age is to be taken. If benefit

2
Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681
Jaya Mala v. Govt. of JK (1982) 2 SCC 538
Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 5 of 7
of doubt has to go to the accused then one would have to take the
higher limit and if benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the
prosecutrix then the lower of the two limits would have to be taken.

16. It is also settled position of law that benefit of doubt, other
things being equal, at all stages goes in favour of the accused. 3

17. In the present case as no document of age was available, the age
has been determined by the Child Welfare Committee as 17 years
based on the ossification report. The bone ossification test report has
estimated the age as 17 to 19 years. So applying the margin of error
principle, of two years on either side, the age could be between 15 to
21 years. In the present case even if the margin of error is not taken on
the higher side, the upper limit of the age estimated by the ossification
test is 19 years.

18. Giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the age of the victim
has to be taken as 19 years of age. Accordingly, the order dated
06.09.2017 passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as well as
the order of the Appellate Court dated 21.02.2018 is not sustainable.

19. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.09.2017
passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as well as the order of
the Appellate Court dated 21.02.2018 is set aside to the limited extent
that it determines the age of the victim as 17 years.

3

Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 1 SCC 678
Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 6 of 7

20. In so far as the direction issued to the petitioner to pay the
wages as well as childhood loss compensation to the victim is
concerned, the same is not being interfered with, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, because the same has been determined
keeping in view the interest of the victim in mind. However, it is
noticed that there is a calculation error in the order dated 06.09.2017.
The wages have been calculated at Rs. 47,840/- and childhood loss
compensation has been assessed at Rs. 10,000/- the total of both
however, has been mentioned as 48,840/- instead of 57,840/-.
Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay the said amount of Rs. 57,840/-
in terms of the order dated 06.09.2017.

21. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

22. Order Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
August 08, 2018
‘Sn’

Crl.Rev.P.195/2018 Page 7 of 7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation