need for getting test identification done.

1. • Kidnapping and Rape Appeal against Conviction The prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age at the time of incident, thus her consent, if any, is immaterial. The contention of learned counsel for Appellant that the age of the prosecutrix was not properly proved as no ossification test of the prosecutrix was done deserves to be rejected as her date of birth was proved by the prosecution by exhibiting the school record. As per Rule 12 of the Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 precedence has to be given to the age noted in the school first attended and the last resort is to ossification test. The version of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by the presence of semen on the salwar of the prosecutrix. The name of Appellant has been mentioned in the ruqgqa itself. Thus there is no improvement in the version of the prosecutrix and there was no need for getting test identification done.

DHARAMBIR vs STATE CRLA 178/01 02/05/21 [ MUKTA JJ ] [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]