POCSO Act Bone Ossification Test Vital Only When Victim On Cusp Of Majority, Bombay HC Accepts Victim A Minor Based On Father’s Evidence

Case: Sunil s/o Fattesing Sable v. State of Maharashtra

Coram: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2016

Court Observation: “There was no ossification test conducted in this case, however, this question would come when the girl is on the border line. When there is still margin of four years, it cannot be said that the girl was not a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The father of the victim who has the knowledge of the date of birth of the daughter, his testimony would be also important in that respect and, therefore, in this case the prosecution had proved that the victim was a child.”

No doubt, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she has not stated the name of the accused, but at that time, the accused was not before the girl and, therefore, the identification is important, rather than the name

“It is rather the failure on the part of the investigating officer to get the proper statement of such victim. In such cases, the investigating officer should make the girls comfortable and then try to take the statements”

Previous Posts

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Display Of ‘Gross Images’ In Anti-Tobacco Ads In Cinemas, OTT Platforms

Delhi High Court Restrains Parle From Using ‘For The Bold’ Tagline As Predominant Part Of Advertising ‘B Fizz’ Drink In Suit By PepsiCo

Paddy Land Act | Authority Must Consider Feasibility Of Paddy Cultivation While Deciding Plea To Delete Property From Data Bank: Kerala High Court

Executing Court Can’t Go Behind Decree, Aggrieved Party Must Seek Amendment Of Decree In Case Of Discrepancy With Judgment: Patna High Court

Once Investigation Is Initiated By SFIO Under Companies Act, Parallel Probe By Separate Agency Not Permissible: Delhi High Court

Keywords

POCSO Act | Bone Ossification