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
Keywords
POCSO Act | Bone Ossification
