Birth certificate vs ossification test result
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 17 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
I am accused under Sec 376 IPC for having consensual sex with an alleged minor. She says she is 19 but the police say she is 16 and was 15 at the time of the incident. The police also seem to have a medical certificate but have done nothing to prove it not have they mentioned any one in their list of witnesses to prove birth certificate. The police themselves sent the girl for an ossification test and the doctor who did the test says she is 19.
Which of the two will the Court accept?
Citations if any will be of great help.
Thanks.
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 17 October 2011
if the birth certificate is not available then ossification certificate by medical practitioner approved by government is strong evidence then police certificate
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 October 2011
Certificate of doctor supersedes even birth certificate.
Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh & Anr. on 5 May, 2009
Author: S Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.________ OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4601 of 2006)
Ram Suresh Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh & Anr. ... Respondents
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 17 October 2011
Yes , ossification test would be hold more important than the birth certificate.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 17 October 2011
Birth certificate has more probative value then rediologist's medical ossification result. under section 35 of evidence act.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 October 2011
supreem court judgement cited by mr makkad is self explnatory . doctor certificate supersedes birth certificate
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 October 2011
Only that what is laid by Apex court is the guidance.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 17 October 2011
The medical opinion would supersede.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 October 2011
Dear Experts,
First of all, my sincere apologies for what follows.
I read the above judgement viz Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh & Anr. on 5 May, 2009, and it says the exact opposite of what you'll have adviced (exception being expert Shri Ravi Kant Soni).
As for the perticulars:-
1. The judgement is about opinion of Medical Board and birth date as per school leaving certificate and not birth certificate.
2. Further, it talks about Rule 22(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 wherein order of
priority has been given to the certificate of birth issued by the school in preference to the opinion of the duly
constituted medical board and also adds that once the school leaving certificate has been proved (even that is not required if it is a public document)then it must be accepted as the correct date.
Come on Sirs, please, you'll are suppossed to be the experts.
My apologies once again. I am forced to write this as I depend upon and have always received great help from your esteemed advices.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 26 October 2011
There are three different things:-
(1) Ossification result
(2) School Certificate
(3) Birth Certificate (hospital or municipal record)
Probative value order:
(1) Ossification result < (2) School Certificate < (3) Birth Certificate (hospital or municipal record)
Ossification result is an opinion only not having evidentary value as much as documentary proofs. But it may be use for corroboratory purpose.
The ruling supra does not infers any conclusive principal as to presumption to determine age.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 26 October 2011
I ld cite this ruling-
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1568 "Arjun Singh v. State of H.P."
"The opinion of the Medical Officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character and not binding on the witness of fact."
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 26 October 2011
One more landmark judgment-
AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 508 "Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra"
In the present case, the father and the mother categorically stated that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age which is supported by the unimpeachable documents, viz., Birth register of Municipal Corporation and register of Hospital where prosecutrix was born. These are the statements of facts. If the statements of facts are pitted against the so-called expert opinion of the doctor with regard to the determination of age based on ossification test scientifically conducted, the evidene of facts of the former will prevail over the expert opinion based on the basis of ossification test. Even as per the doctor's opinion in the ossification test for determination of age, the age varies. Therefore, the ossification test cannot form the basis for determination of the age of the prosecutrix on the face of witness of facts tendered by father and mother supported by unimpeachable documents.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 27 October 2011
Thank you very much for the input.
That's what I call an expert advice.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 27 October 2011
We always devoted to serve suffering humanity.
