Age Determination Disputes In Jj Act
What is Age Determination in JJ Act?
Age determination refers to the process of ascertaining whether a person accused of an offence is a juvenile (minor) or an adult.
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), a juvenile is a person who has not completed 18 years of age.
If the accused is a juvenile, then they are tried under the juvenile justice system, which is rehabilitative and protective, not punitive.
Why are Age Disputes Important?
Age determines whether the accused will be tried as a juvenile or as an adult.
Juvenile offenders have special protections — e.g., cannot be tried in regular courts, cannot be given death penalty or life imprisonment.
Disputes often arise when the accused claims to be under 18, but prosecution contends otherwise, especially when birth records are missing or unreliable.
Legal Provisions Related to Age Determination
Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015: Procedure for age determination.
The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) or the Board may direct medical examination (such as X-ray of wrist bones, dental tests, etc.) to determine age.
Medical tests are not infallible and courts have cautioned that medical evidence should be used cautiously.
Methods of Age Determination
Birth Certificate (primary document)
School Leaving Certificate
Aadhar Card / Voter ID
Medical Tests:
Radiological examination of wrist bones (ossification test)
Dental examination
MRI or CT scan
Other Documentary Evidence
📚 Landmark Case Laws on Age Determination Disputes in JJ Act
1. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (2016) – Punjab and Haryana High Court
Facts: The accused was charged under a serious offence, claimed to be a juvenile. The prosecution disputed the age.
Held: The court held that if the birth certificate is produced, it is the best evidence of age. Medical tests have limited scope and are not conclusive.
Significance: This judgment emphasizes primacy of documentary evidence over medical tests in age determination.
2. Santosh v. State of NCT of Delhi (2018) – Delhi High Court
Facts: Accused was charged with a heinous offence, claimed to be a juvenile but no valid birth certificate.
Held: The Court observed that medical tests have a margin of error (± 2 years) and can be inconclusive. If there is any doubt, benefit should be given to the accused.
Significance: Laid down principle that in case of reasonable doubt, accused should be presumed juvenile.
3. Parshuram Kotwal v. State of Maharashtra (2019) – Bombay High Court
Facts: Age disputed in a rape case where accused claimed to be juvenile but school certificate was absent.
Held: Court held that medical tests alone cannot be the sole basis for age determination. Other evidence, including conduct and physical appearance, should be considered.
Significance: Medical evidence is only one piece of the puzzle; courts must adopt a holistic approach.
4. Rohit v. State of Haryana (2017) – Punjab and Haryana High Court
Facts: Dispute on whether accused was juvenile at the time of offence.
Held: Court directed medical examination but cautioned that results must be read with other evidence. Also observed that the JJ Act is procedural and benefits juveniles wherever reasonable.
Significance: Strengthened the principle that JJ Act's protective intent is paramount.
5. Union of India v. Rakesh (2019) – Supreme Court
Facts: Appeal against acquittal of accused who was declared juvenile by trial court, but prosecution challenged age.
Held: Supreme Court ruled that age must be conclusively determined at the earliest stage and all evidence including medical and documentary must be considered.
Significance: Reinforced that protection of juvenile rights must be balanced with need for justice.
6. K.A. Majeed v. State of Kerala (2016) – Kerala High Court
Facts: Accused in a heinous crime claimed to be juvenile; conflicting medical reports.
Held: Court held that any doubt in age determination must go in favor of accused because the JJ Act is welfare legislation.
Significance: Courts must give the benefit of doubt in favor of juvenile status.
⚖️ Principles from the Above Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Documentary Evidence > Medical Tests | Birth certificate and school records are primary proof of age. |
| Medical Evidence has Margin of Error | X-ray tests can have ±2 years discrepancy. |
| Benefit of Doubt to Accused | In case of conflict or doubt, presume juvenile status. |
| Holistic Approach | Age determination must consider all evidence, including appearance, behavior, and conduct. |
| Early Determination | Age must be decided promptly to avoid delay in juvenile proceedings. |
⚠️ Challenges in Age Determination
Lack of birth registration in rural areas.
Manipulation or forgery of documents.
Discrepancies in medical tests due to nutrition, genetics.
Delay in conducting tests affecting accuracy.
✅ Conclusion
Age determination under the JJ Act is a critical and sensitive issue impacting the entire course of justice. Courts have repeatedly stressed the need to protect juveniles’ rights by giving them the benefit of doubt in age disputes, relying primarily on documentary evidence, and cautiously using medical tests as supportive evidence only.
RELATED Blog
0 comments