Courts May Rely On Ossification Test With 2-Yr Margin Of Error In Absence Of School Records: Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Juvenility To Accused

The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the judgment of the Patna High Court in a murder case.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held, “The issue as to how the age, as determined in ossification test, is to be considered has been gone into by this Court in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, in which it has been observed that when school records or reliable certificates are unavailable or suspected to be tampered with, courts may rely on medical determination with a margin of error of 2 years on the lower or higher side applied to it.”

Advocate Parinav Gupta represented the Appellant, while Advocate Pranjal Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Trial Court had convicted eight accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302,149 and 323,149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. All the eight accused persons challenged their conviction and sentence by filing a Criminal Appeal but the same was dismissed. The first and second Appellants (Umesh Yadav and his brother), raised the claim of juvenility before the Apex Court for the first time, arguing that they were less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident (August 30, 1988).

Since the claim of juvenility was not raised in the courts below, the Apex Court, in 2019, directed the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. An Ossification test was conducted. The Medical Board submitted the Report on the basis of which, the age of the second appellant appeared to be 19 years.

Reasoning

Considering the reports submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Gaya, and the observations made in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir (1982), the Bench gave the benefit of two years to the second Appellant from the age determined by the ossification test. It was held that he could be said to be 17 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence.

“Hence, he can be given the benefit of being juvenile. Maximum punishment which can be awarded to a juvenile under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is 3 years of detention in a special home... is said to have already undergone imprisonment of more than 8 years. Hence, he deserves to be released immediately unless required in any other case”, it held.

Coming to the first appellant, Umesh Yadav, the Bench noted that it was claimed that he was the elder brother of the second Appellant. The Bench also found discrepancies in the documents produced to prove his age. Considering the fact that he was admittedly the elder brother of the second appellant, whose age was determined by the ossification test as 19 years, the Bench held that the age of Umesh Yadav would be more than that. "Hence, he cannot be given the benefit of being juvenile on the date of commission of offence”, it stated.

Taking note of the fact that the incident took place more than 35 years back, and besides Umesh Yadav, whose age was not ascertained, the other two appellants were in their 50s and 60s, the Bench held that the sentence awarded could be modified to a fixed term of 14 years of actual imprisonment.

Thus, modifying the judgment of the High Court, the Bench partly allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Umesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1336)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Parinav Gupta, Pardeep Gupta, Mansi Gupta, Rakshit Rathi, AOR Vipin Gupta

Respondent: Advocate Pranjal Sharma, AOR Samir Ali Khan, Advocates Kashif Khan, Md. Arshad

Click here to read/download Judgment