Section 94 JJ Act | Ossification Test Not Mandatory When Reliable School Records Exist: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“The ossification test becomes necessary only in cases where documents mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act are not available; non-conduct of such test does not vitiate the prosecution case when school records are available.”— In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, has upheld the conviction of an accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, clarifying the hierarchy of age determination evidence under the POCSO Act.

The Harrowing Ordeal: Abduction Amidst Wedding Festivities

The case, Ayyaz Mohammad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, stems from a disturbing incident in June 2019. The prosecutrix, a minor student, had attended a wedding ceremony in her neighborhood. While stepping out for nature's call around 10:00 PM, she was abducted by the appellant and an accomplice. The Court noted the chilling detail that the victim’s screams were drowned out by the loud DJ music playing at the wedding.

The victim was wrongfully confined in the appellant's house for three days, during which she was subjected to repeated forcible sexual intercourse. The ordeal concluded only when the police, acting on a missing person report, raided the appellant's house and recovered the victim. The Trial Court subsequently convicted Ayyaz Mohammad under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and relevant sections of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

“The victim was recovered from the house of the appellant... This fact is corroborated by the victim's mother and father... The scientific evidence, particularly the positive DNA report, further implicates accused.”

Statutory Supremacy: School Records Override Medical Estimation

The crux of the appeal lay in the determination of the victim's age. The defence vehemently argued that the victim was a major, relying on a scholar register from a Government Primary School which recorded her date of birth as 12.09.2002. Conversely, the prosecution relied on the admission register of the school first attended by the victim, which recorded her date of birth as 04.07.2006, making her approximately 13 years old at the time of the incident.

The High Court, conducting a deep dive into the evidence, found the defence's document to be "doubtful" and "unauthenticated," noting overwriting and a lack of official seals. Relying on the Supreme Court’s dictum in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the Bench reiterated that under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (read with Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015), statutory documents hold primacy.

Ossification Test: A Residual Method, Not a Mandatory Ritual

A significant legal contention raised by the defence was the absence of an ossification test. The medical expert had initially advised an X-ray for age determination, but the test was never conducted. The defence argued that this omission was fatal to the prosecution's case, citing Sunil v. State of Haryana.

The High Court rejected this submission, distinguishing the precedents. The Bench clarified that medical opinion (ossification test) is a residual method of age determination, to be resorted to only when primary documentary evidence (matriculation certificate or school admission record) is unavailable. Since the prosecution had produced a reliable school register, the non-conduct of the ossification test was legally irrelevant.

“We are not laying down as a rule that all these tests must be performed in all cases... ossification test is not the sole criterion for determination of the date of birth.”

Scientific Corroboration and The Irrelevance of Consent

The Court further bolstered the conviction by highlighting the positive DNA match between the appellant and the biological samples recovered from the victim. The defence's attempt to paint the incident as a consensual relationship arising out of a financial dispute was summarily dismissed. The Court held that once the victim is established as a minor, the question of consent is "legally inconsequential."

Finding the prosecution's evidence—comprising the victim's consistent testimony, her recovery from the accused’s custody, and scientific corroboration—to be unimpeachable, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 20-year sentence.

Date of Decision: 27/01/2026