Ossification test

2023 PLD 536 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 8(1)JuvenileDetermination of ageOssification test

Scope and significance of ossification test in determining age of an accused stated.

2021 MLD 2088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.7Age, determination ofProduction of documentary evidenceOssification testScope

Whenever there is sufficient corroborative documentary evidence regarding age of the accused, the report of ossification test being merely an expert opinion cannot over-ride the documentary proof, particularly when the same was incorporated much prior to the occurrence.

2020 PCrLJ 627 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ossification testScope

Term ossification stands for developmental process of bone formation whereby their shape and size is changed with passing age in childhood and adolescence

Symptoms are helpful for determining age until ossification is completed, however, owing to variations in climatic conditions, dietetic values, hereditary differences and other factors, it is not possible to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of union of epiphysis in different regions of the sub-continent

Determination of age through ossification is, therefore, vulnerable to variation of 2 to 3 years.

2020 PCrLJ 374 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 2(b)Determination of ageOssification test

Duty had been cast upon Incharge of Police Station or Investigating Officer that if a person alleged to have committed an offence physically appeared or he himself claimed to be a juvenile, immediately an inquiry would be initiated for determination of his age.

2018 PLC(CS)N 133 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Regln. 3.16Employee of Civil Aviation AuthorityAlteration in date of birth of employee by the AuthorityRetrospective retirement of employeePrinciple of audi alteram partemApplicabilityMedical fitness certificateOssification testDetermination of ageService BookScopePrinciple of acquiescence and waiverApplicability

Contention of employee was that his date of birth was 02-08-1956 but the Authority altered the same and superannuated him

Department contended that employee filed medical certificate at the time of his induction showing his age at that time as eighteen years which would be around as 01-07-1952

Validity

Employee had been condemned unheard and had been retired retrospectively

Maxim 'audi alteram partem' was applicable to judicial as well as non-judicial proceedings

Department was a public Authority and was supposed to function in accordance with law

Authority had committed illegality by not providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the employee while altering his date of birth without any cogent reason

Medical certificate of employee was neither based upon ossification test nor opinions of dental surgeon or radiologist

Said certificate had also not been signed by any doctor nor it had been stamped showing its authenticity

Nothing was on record to suggest as to on what basis the date of birth of employee was mentioned as eighteen years in the medical fitness certificate

Mere stating in medical certificate that employee was eighteen years old could not be considered as an authentic piece of evidence to determine age of petitioner

Date of birth of petitioner was 02-08-1956 according to his Service Book

Service Book was always prepared by the department to maintain record of employee and could not be manipulated by the employee

Nothing was on record that employee had manipulated/tampered his date of birth in the Service Book

Employee had produced his school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 02-08-1956

Said certificate had not been challenged by the department

School leaving certificate remained un-rebutted and entries mentioned in the said certificate were to be taken as true

Computerized National Identity Card issued by the NADRA also showed date of birth of petitioner as 02-08-1956

No reason, therefore, existed to discard the documentary evidence produced by the employee with regard to his date of birth as 02-08-1956

Stance of department/Authority which was based on irrational, arbitrary and illegal as well as surmises and conjectures could not be relied

Employee was to be treated as retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation

Impugned orders passed by the Auuthority were set aside having no legal effect

Petitioner had attained the age of superannuation therefore no question for his reinstatement arose

Employee would be entitled for his all salaries and service benefits of intervening period

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 638 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ossification testAuthenticity

Ossification test is though based upon guess forming opinion after examination of X-rays of wrist joints but it can hardly be variative of one year and not beyond that.

2015 PCrLJ 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 2(b)Determination of ageOssification test

Accused moved an application seeking declaration to be a juvenile at the time of commission of crime which was dismissed by the Trial Court after an inquiry and ossification test conducted by the Medical Board

Contention of the accused was that he was less than the age of eighteen years at the time of commission of crime

Validity

Accused applied for a declaration of his being a juvenile and he himself suggested the ossification test through a Medical Board and the same had been termed by him as a mandatory step within the meaning of S. 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Medical Board declared the accused as 22-23 years of age which had not been challenged by him and he had never demanded re-examination by creating doubts on opinion of Medical Board

Accused was not a child when occurrence took place within the meaning of S. 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and findings of the Trial Court were justified and did not call for any interference

Revision was dismissed.