'DOB Being Manipulated To Seek Juvenile Status': Allahabad HC Calls For Strict Age Verification In Criminal Cases As Per S. 94 JJ Act

In a strongly worded order, the Court also criticised the laxity of law enforcement agencies in conducting proper age verification as required by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

This provision mandates that the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile must primarily be determined on the basis of documentary evidence, and if the same isn't feasible, to conduct ossification or other medical age determination tests.

Referring to the case of the Balia district, where a qualified radiologist isn't available, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal stressed that a lapse in healthcare infrastructure not only delays justice but also affects the credibility of the juvenile justice system.

In view of these observations, the bench called upon the UP Govt to take up the following steps:

• For developing a mechanism for stringent verification of documents submitted for age determination, the police is directed to strictly adhere to Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and be trained accordingly.
• Immediate steps be taken by the Health Department to appoint or depute at least one Radiologist in the district of Ballia to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act.

Essentially, the Court was dealing with a bail plea of an accused booked under sections 137(2), 61(2), 65(1) B.N.S. and 3/4(2) POCSO Act. As per the FIR, the accused had enticed away the 16-year-old daughter of the first informant.

However, it is the case of the accused that the alleged victim is an 18-year-old girl, who had left her house on her own will after being scolded by her parents.

The accused also referred to the victim's own statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS wherein she claimed that she is a major and is a consenting party.

Dealing with the bail plea, the bench, at the outset, expressed its displeasure over the non-compliance with its earlier orders, which directed the Chief Medical Officer (C.M.O.), Ballia, to constitute a medical board to conduct an ossification test on the victim to determine her age.

The bench was informed that CMO Ballia had written several letters to the S.H.O. concerned, but the victim was not being produced for the ossification test. Finally, on March 5, 2025, her X-ray report was prepared, and the same was taken to the office of the CMO, but he refused to give the ossification test report due to the victim's unavailability (victim had gone to Himachal Pradesh by then).

Taking into account the delays and lack of cooperation from police, the CMO, and the victim's relocation, the Court, taking exception to the approach of authorities, observed thus:

“29. The aforesaid averments made in the compliance affidavit indicates that the authorities are not serious in getting the orders of the High Court complied. The red tape approach is but evident from the attitude of the authorities at large, as such, with a heavy heart, this Court has no other option but to dispose of the instant bail application without the said ossification test report. There is no documentary evidence to indicate the age of the victim. 30. The victim was taken from Ballia to Mau for her X-ray report but the ossification test was not completed the same day. The victim was asked to be present before the C.M.O. on a subsequent date. The said callous approach is deprecated, as the proceedings ought to have been completed the same day.”

In view of this, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the victim had stated herself to be 18 years old in her statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS and also the fact that she is the consenting party as per her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, and also taking note of the fact that the victim had gone with the applicant all the way to Gujarat and stayed there and did not raise any alarm during the said sojourn, and despite efforts, the ossification test of the victim could not be conducted, the bench allowed the bail plea on certain conditions.