Dismissed

Manoj @ Krishna v. State National Capital Territory of Delhi

Delhi HC1 Dec 2015CRL.REV.P./367/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In revision, the petitioner challenged the trial court's finding that he was 18.5 years old at the time of the offence. The High Court noted the ossification report placing age at 22-25 years and held the trial court's assessment, which included medical margins, required no intervention. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.

Manoj @ Krishna Vs State National Capital Territory… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

DECIDED ON : 1^st DECEMBER, 2015

¶4

+ CRL.REV.P. 367/2015

¶5

MANOJ @ KRISHNA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Javed Ali, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

¶8

..... Respondent

¶9

Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI Sachin Kumar

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶12

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

¶13

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner – Manoj @ Krishna to impugn the legality and correctness of an order dated 16.03.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which it was held that the petitioner was aged around 18 ½ years on the date of incident

¶14

/ offence and was not a juvenile. Status report is on record.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioner was arrested in case FIR No.445/12

¶16

Crl.Rev.P.367/2015

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

registered under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act at Police Station Sarai Rohilla on 24.12.2012. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against him. The prosecution examined various witnesses. On 27.05.2014, an application under Rule 12(3)(B) of Juvenile Justice Rules 2007 seeking directions for ossification test was filed. By an order dated 08.09.2014, Medical Superintendent of DDU Hospital was directed to conduct ossification test. Ossification test report dated 09.09.2014 was filed on record where the age of the petitioner was opined to be in between 22 – 25 years. The Trial Court examined Dr.Bharti Singhal, M.D. Radiologist and Dr.Ashish Kapoor, H.O.D., Dental to prove their report Ex.CW-1/A. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that age of the petitioner on the date of commission of offence i.e. 13.03.2012 was 19 ½ to 22 ½ years and allowing margin of one year on the lower side, it was around 18 ½ years.

¶19

Main grievance of the petitioner is that age opined by CW-2 (Dr.Ashish Kapoor), Dentist, only on the basis of eruption of third molar was not legally permissible as other relevant features mentioned in Modi Medical Jurisprudence i.e. peculiarities, like decay, malposition, overlapping or rotation, broken teeth, fillings, gaps or dentures were not

¶20

Crl.Rev.P.367/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

taken into consideration. Moreover, the petitioner was entitled to have margin of two years.

¶23

Both CW-1 and CW-2 have categorically stated that on 09.09.2014, a Medical Board under the Chairmanship of Dr.Rakesh Kumar was constituted. After detailed examination, the Board opined the age of the petitioner Manoj @ Krishna between 22 – 25 years. They were cross-examined at length but nothing material could be extracted to discard their opinion. A comprehensive report based upon the findings given by the physician, dentist and radiologist was considered and the age of the petitioner was estimated to be in between 22 – 25 years. It was categorically asserted by CW-2 that age of the petitioner could not be less than 17 years as the third molar had erupted in his upper and lower jaws. He was categorical to state that if the molar had erupted, the age of the person would not be less than 17 years. He admitted the suggestion that as per medical jurisprudence and toxicology (page No. 234), the third molar or wisdom teeth erupts between the age of 17 – 25 years. Moreover, while estimating the age of the petitioner, all the other features given by physician, dentist and radiologist were taken together and the report in question was submitted. The petitioner did not examine any expert to

¶24

Crl.Rev.P.367/2015

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

cause dent in the age opined by the experts in their report dated

¶27

09.09.2014.

¶28

The learned Trial Court has already given margin of one year

¶29

on the lower side as prescribed under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care

¶30

and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 under which the application in

¶31

question for determination of age was moved.

¶32

The impugned order based upon fair appraisal of the report

¶33

and legal aspects needs no intervention.

¶34

The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶35

Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the

¶36

copy of the order.

¶37

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

¶38

DECEMBER 01, 2015 / tr

¶39

Crl.Rev.P.367/2015

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Manoj @ Krishna v. State National Capital Territory of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Krishna v. State National Capital Territory of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Mittal Vs State ( Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Atul Gupta Vs State ( Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Gaffar Ahmed Vs State

Naresh Kumar Singhal & Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav @ Gauri Vs State

State NCT of Delhi Vs Shambhu Kumar