Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040010382025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./134/2025 Minto Kaye Son of Mr Tamin Kaye, Telam Vilalge, PO and PS Nari, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Smti Nyade Nyodu Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Shri Henmo Nyodu Village Telam PO and PS Nari Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, Bakar Dulom,B Padung Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 25-06-2025 Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, Page No.# 2/5 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the order, dated 06.06.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG SC (POCSO) Case No. 7/2025, by which, an ossification test was directed to be conducted by a Medical Board for determining the age of the victim in connection with the aforesaid case. The learned Special Judge (POCSO) directed that a Medical Board be constituted and the victim may be examined by them and that the Board shall submit a report before the said Court in a sealed cover on or before 16.07.2025. 3. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits before this Court that the age of the victim was already proved by documents as well as by the depositions of the mother and victim, before the Magistrate in their examination under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He submits that the School Admission Register from the Government Upper Primary School, Telam, in respect of the victim was seized during the investigation and according to the said record, the victim girl was enrolled in Class-III during the Session 2018-19 by reflecting her Date of Birth as 10.07.2004. According to the learned counsel, if the Date of Birth of the victim was 10.07.2004 and the occurrence having taken place before 10.01.2025, when the victim was found pregnant, the age of the victim would be at best 19 (nineteen) years and she cannot be treated as a minor. 4. He further submits that in the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim stated that although in the ADHAR card, her age is shown as 15 (Fifteen) years, but she stated that she is of 18 (Eighteen) years of age. She also stated that her real Date of Birth is 10.08.2006 and in that case, she will be 18 (eighteen) years of age during the time of occurrence. He had also placed the statement of the mother of the victim recorded under Section 183 of Page No.# 3/5 the BNSS, 2023, wherein, she stated that her daughter’s Date of Birth is 10.08.2006 and in that case, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the victim would be 18 (Eighteen) years of age, during the time of occurrence. As such, Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel states that the victim was not a minor during the occurrence. 5. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. The State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, wherein, it has been observed that in absence of other evidences on record, the deposition of the Headmaster of the Government High School where the victim studied was relied upon, in order to prove the age. 6. On the other hand, Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Siang District, Pasighat, on 06.06.2025, wherein, the ossification test of the victim was ordered. She has placed the copy of the Charge- sheet, which reveals that during the investigation, no Birth Certificate was placed although in the School Admission Register, the Date of Birth of the victim was shown as 10.07.2004. She also placed the stipulations made in the said Charge- sheet, wherein, it was stated that in the year 2023-24, the guardian of the victim girl, submitted an ADHAR card, indicating her Date of Birth as 02.02.2009, but again no Birth Certificate was produced. She has also placed the finding in the order, dated 06.06.2025, wherein, the learned Court had clearly stated that since there are no documents except the ADHAR card, the age could not be determined under Section 94(2)(I)&(II) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the JJ Act). And as such, the Court with no other option left, had to direct for the victim’s ossification test. Page No.# 4/5 7. I have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the records. 8. It is provided specifically in Section 94 of the JJ Act as to how the age is to be determined. The relevant part of Section 94 is reproduced below: “...(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.” 9. From a bare perusal of the provisions mentioned above, it is clear that the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board shall undertake the process of age determination only by seeking at the outset the Birth Certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned Examination Board and only in absence, thereof, the Committee or the Board should obtain the Birth Certificate given by corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat and only in absence of the above 2 (Two) documents, the Committee or the Board shall determine the age of the victim by an ossification test or any medical age determination test. It is amply clear that in absence of the Birth Certificates, Ossification Test should be ordered. 10. It is seen in the instant case that none of the documents mentioned in Clause – (I) & (II) of Section 94 of the JJ Act was available to the prosecution in order to determine the age of the victim. It is without an iota of doubt that in case of the absence of the above 2 (Two) documents, ossification test has to be ordered to determine the age of the victim. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Siang Page No.# 5/5 District, Pasighat, vide order, dated 06.06.2025, has recorded the finding that there are no documents showing the age of the victim except the ADHAR card that was produced during the investigation. The learned Special Judge, as such, with no other option available, ordered for ossification test of the victim. 11. It is seen from the record that the School Admission Register, which was seized during the investigation, revealed that the Date of Birth of the victim was 10.07.2004. However, in the ADHAR card that was produced after few years, her Date of Birth was shown as 02.02.2009 and in the deposition of the Headmaster, the same facts were revealed by the said witness. There is apparently a discrepancy in the Date of Birth of the victim girl, as has been recorded in the School Admission Register and the ADHAR card. 12. This Court, as such, does not find any infirmity in the order, dated 06.06.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Siang District, Pasighat, in PSG SC (POCSO) Case No. 7/2025. 13. Accordingly, with the above observation, the instant criminal petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant