>>5568064 pb
very interesting.
those that are blind will see.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124787770/
7 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has laid down the guidelines to arrive at a finding about the age of a juvenile. These are contained in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The procedure to be followed in the determination of the age is contained therein. The Supreme Court in 2013 11 SCC 637 Mahadeo Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. has held that this procedure will also apply for determination of age of a rape victim. Rule 12 (3) clearly states that the age inquiry would be conducted by the Court by obtaining matriculation or equivalent certificate in the absence of which the date of birth certificate from the school first attended or the next option being the birth certificate issued by the municipal authorities be obtained. Documents relied upon by the prosecution to establish that the victim was born on 08.10.2001 does not fit into any of the aforenoted category. In such an anomaly, Rule 12 states that a Medical Board will be constituted to determine the age of a victim. This would only be a relevant fact and needless to state, would not be a conclusive evidence about the age of the victim. 8 The police file has also been perused by this Court. The seizure memo about the age of the victim shows that the date of 08.10.2001 is mentioned. It merely records the date of birth of the victim 'P' of the year 2001. This is based on the Adhar Card of the victim. This is in addition to the document discussed supra. In her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.Pc, the prosecutrix has given her age as 15 years. She has reiterated this on a specific query put to her about her age. 9 It was in these circumstances that the impugned order was passed. It is based on the cogent evidence collected by the prosecution. The stand of the prosecution that the victim was a minor and aged 12 years is not established by the documents relied upon by the prosecution. In terms of Rule 12 if the first three parameters contained in Rule 12 (3) are not made available, the next step would be to subject the victim to an ossification test. This as noted supra would not be the conclusive piece of evidence. This has to be coupled with the fact that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC has clearly stated that she was 15 years of age on the date of the incident. This is clearly a case where even if the accused is put to trial, the result is already pre- known; it would result in an acquittal. This is clear in view of the statement given by the victim, both under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.PC coupled with the fact that there is no conclusive proof with the prosecution about the victim being a minor. This Court is of the view that the order suffers from no infirmity.