What is the ossification test for determination of age? Does it apply in rape cases? An ossification test, also known as a bone age test, is a medical examination used to determine the maturity of the bones in a person’s body. In the context of rape cases, ossification tests are used to estimate the age of an accused person. Specifically, it is used to determine if an accused person is above or below the age of 18, which is the legal age of consent in India.
The test is performed by taking X-rays of the bones in the wrist and elbow, which are then compared to a set of standard X-rays to determine the maturity of the bones. The test is typically used to determine the age of someone who is suspected of being underage, but whose birth records are not available.
The use of ossification tests in rape cases is controversial because the test is not always accurate. In fact, studies have shown that the test can be off by as much as 4 years in either direction. This means that an accused person who is actually 18 years old could be determined to be either 14 or 22 years old based on the results of an ossification test.
Additionally, it is important to note that ossification test is not a conclusive evidence of age, it is only one of the factors considered by the court along with other evidence like school records, voter ID, PAN card, Passport etc.
Despite these limitations, ossification tests are still widely used in India as a way to determine the age of an accused person in rape cases. This is primarily because the test is relatively inexpensive and can be performed quickly.
However, it is important to note that ossification test is not a conclusive evidence of age, it is only one of the factors considered by the court along with other evidence like school records, voter ID, PAN card, Passport etc.
Furthermore, the test should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence and should not be the sole determining factor in a case. This is particularly important in cases where the accused person is a minor, as the laws and penalties for those under the age of 18 are different from those for adults.
It is also important to note that the use of ossification tests in rape cases raises ethical and legal concerns. The test is invasive and can be traumatic for the person being examined, especially if they are a victim of sexual assault. Additionally, there is a risk of false accusations and wrongful convictions based on inaccurate test results.
In conclusion, ossification tests can be a useful tool in determining the age of an accused person in rape cases, but it is important to understand the limitations of the test and to use it in conjunction with other forms of evidence. Additionally, the test should be used with caution, as it raises ethical and legal concerns. It is essential that the court should consider all the evidence along with ossification test results and come to a conclusion.
Section 375 of The Indian Penal Code defines the offence of rape. The sixth paragraph of section 375 says that the consent of the victim is immaterial in offence of rape when the age of the victim is under 18 years. If the accused takes a plea that the victim was above the age of 18 years when the offence was committed. Therefore in this condition determination of age is necessary. The court may order for ossification test of a rape victim if no other director is available regarding her age.
Generally when the victim appears to be above 18 years and some records show that she is below 18 years then contradiction towards age arises. Ossification test is conducted by a medical expert. This test is based upon the fusion of joints in the human body. Generally, all joints of bones become fused at or after the age of 25 years.
However, it is scientific evidence but not conclusive because it may be possible that bones take more time infusion. It is almost admitted by law that 2 years should be given as grace period to the person examined.
In Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath vs State of Assam (2001) SCC it is held by the supreme court that:
“The statement of the doctor is no more than an opinion, the court has to base its conclusions upon all the facts and circumstances disclosed on examining of the physical features of the person whose age is in question……In this vast country with varied latitudes, heights, environment, vegetation and nutrition, the height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform.”
In Vishnu alias Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC the Supreme Court rejected the plea of defence that ossification test is scientifically proved and it deserves acceptance. Court held that:
“We are unable to accept this contention for the reasons that the expert medical evidence is not binding on the ocular evidence. 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 advisory and not binding on the witness of fact.”
The court shall examine all the physical evidence of the person concerned. Its decision can’t be based solely upon the opinion of the doctor. If there is any doubt regarding the age, benefit of doubt must in all cases be given to accused. Medical opinion is not binding on the court. This view is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Prahlad And Anr. Vs. The State of Haryana (2015) SCC.
