The above judgment and order dated 27. Mumbai: A bone ossification is by itself not conclusive proof of age, the Bombay has ruled, while directing a trial court to conduct a probe to verify the age of a accused who claims he was a minor at the time of the crime. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. The fels method Fels method was developed by Roche et al. While seven of the accused including Kumar are facing trial in the court here on the directions of the Supreme Court, the eighth accused in the case is facing trial in a juvenile court in Kathua district. However, just like hand bones, two similar approaches are used for computing dental age.
Computerized calculation of bone age from wrist radiographs has been around for the past 3 decades. The court directed Jalla to supervise the medical examination and submit the report on July 2, a day after the court reopens after a 16-day summer break. However, observers are more likely to interpret the radiograph as normal when chronologic age is known than when it is not. The trial in the case began on May 31 with the seven accused being produced before the district and sessions judge after the Supreme Court transferred the case from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab for a fair trial following a plea by the victim's family. Finding a 100% match is generally difficult.
This was considered as another reason that the opinion of the Medical Board determining the age of the appellants as 35-40 years in May, 2016 could not be relied upon. The Government Medical College hospital in Jammu would constitute a board to conduct bone ossification test of the accused to determine his age at the request of Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, R K Jalla, special public prosecutor J K Chopra said. This informs the clinician of the relative maturity of a patient at a particular time in his or her life. Bone age is calculated by comparing the left wrist radiographs of the subject with the nearest matching reference radiographs provided in the atlas which are standard for different ages provided in the atlas. Banumathi in the case of Mukarrab Etc.
The trial in the case began on May 31 with the seven accused were produced before the district and sessions judge after the Supreme Court transferred the case from Jammu and Kashmir to Pathankot in Punjab for a fair trial following a plea by the victim's family. Therefore, the age determination based on ossification test though may be useful is not conclusive. It is well-accepted fact that age determination using ossification test does not yield accurate and precise conclusions after the examinee crosses the age of 30 years, which is true in the present case. The first atlas was developed by Schour et al. While seven of the accused including Kumar is facing trial in the court here on the directions of the Supreme Court, the eighth accused in the case is facing trial in a juvenile court in Kathua district. Kumar's lawyers moved an application in the court last week pleading before it that he be treated as a juvenile and produced his matriculation certificate which showed his date of birth as February 22, 2000 in support of the demand. That being so, in terms of Rule 12 3 b the appellant may even be entitled to the benefit of fixing his age on the lower side within a margin of one year in case the Court considers it necessary to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case.
District and Sessions judge Tajwinder Singh issued the directions after hearing the arguments and counter-arguments over the issue of the age of Parvesh Kumar alias Mannu , one of the eight accused in the brutal rape-and-murder case of an eight-year-old nomadic girl in Kathua district of Jammu and Kashmir in January, the lawyers said. This, in our view, is yet another reason that the opinion of the Medical Board determining the age of the appellants as 35-40 years in May, 2016, cannot be relied upon. Conventional radiography of the clavicle is often plagued by overlapping shadows produced by structures of mediastinum, the vertebrae and the ribs. But when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. However, the prosecution objected to it and moved a supplementary application to seek a medical opinion after arguing that the accused was a major for all purposes and requested the court to take into consideration Supreme Court judgments in serious offences of this nature, the special public prosecutor told.
A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. That documents produced by respondent No. That apart, even if the age of the appellant was determined by the upper extremity limit i. Under Rule 12, the Board is enjoined to take evidence for determination of age. Appellant-Mukarrab had claimed that he was born on 01.
In these cases bone age is used to provide the closest estimate of chronological age. This wide variation in the age, even as per medical opinion is because of the reason that it was now too late, because of the advanced age of the appellants to have precise determination of his age. Dental age is an alternate form of bone age determination, which also gives an estimate of skeletal maturity. In the present case, the appellants by filing applications under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 had claimed that at the time of committing the offences they were juvenile i. Appellant-Mukarrab has claimed that he was born on 01. Appellants Mukarrab and Arshad for the very first time raised the claim of juvenility before this Court. A pilot study has been conducted on ultrasonographic visualization of ossification in the cartilaginous part of iliac crest iliac apophysis for estimation of bone age which shows promising results.
Giving additional benefit of lowering their age by one year in terms of Rule 12 3 b would bring their age as 37 years as on May, 2016. Please consult legal experts with full details of your case before relying upon the advice given. Bone age by visualization of the clavicle: Clavicle is the first long bone to start ossifying in fetal life. Since there was no document available to determine the age of the victim, a bone ossification test was conducted wherein her age was estimated to be in the range of 17-19 years. In such cases, the closest matching template radiography is selected.
Limitations of using this method for skeletal age estimation also include involvement of articular cartilage in various juvenile diseases of the hip joint. Also, explanation regarding the gradual age related changes observed in the bone structure is provided with each standard image. As discussed earlier, in para No. State of Bihar, , the High Court observed that the ossification test is not conclusive for age determination. As noted earlier, such a plea of juvenility is raised for the first time in this Court and the same has to be considered on the material brought on record before this Court. The method uses two transducers, one that produces ultrasonic waves with a frequency of 750 kHz directed at the epiphysis of the distal end of ulna and radius whereas the other acts a receiver. Short bones have no dominant long axis and develop differently from the long bones.