Court orders fresh inquiry to determine ‘minor’ accused age
14 Aug 2014 6:21 AM IST
A Delhi court has ordered a fresh enquiry to determine the age of an accused facing criminal charges, after he claimed to be a juvenile. The enquiry was ordered after noting that there were discrepancies in several records produced by the prosecution and the defence in the case.
The magistrate had declared the youth to be a major on 7 June, 2014. But the accused later approached the session court and contended that the magistrate had rejected his school records as unreliable. ‘The ossification test and dental examination showed the youth to be more than 16 years of age, whereas X-ray examination suggested that he was around 21-years- old which points towards discrepancies in the tests,’ contended Veeru Kumar in his application.
The magisterial court had observed that the age of the accused was mentioned as 22 years in the file, while during inquiry, he declared his age to be less than 18 years. It also noted that the Veeru’s mother had earlier told the police that she did not have age proof of any of her children, but the defence counsel had produced the birth certificate of the accused.
Upon hearing the argument, additional session judge Virender Kumar Goyal set aside the magistrate’s order and asked it conduct fresh enquiry. ‘As the birth certificate has now been produced before the court, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law,’ ruled Goyal.
The magistrate had declared the youth to be a major on 7 June, 2014. But the accused later approached the session court and contended that the magistrate had rejected his school records as unreliable. ‘The ossification test and dental examination showed the youth to be more than 16 years of age, whereas X-ray examination suggested that he was around 21-years- old which points towards discrepancies in the tests,’ contended Veeru Kumar in his application.
The magisterial court had observed that the age of the accused was mentioned as 22 years in the file, while during inquiry, he declared his age to be less than 18 years. It also noted that the Veeru’s mother had earlier told the police that she did not have age proof of any of her children, but the defence counsel had produced the birth certificate of the accused.
Upon hearing the argument, additional session judge Virender Kumar Goyal set aside the magistrate’s order and asked it conduct fresh enquiry. ‘As the birth certificate has now been produced before the court, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law,’ ruled Goyal.
Next Story
