Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Introduction

In Deul Kharole v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 MPHC-JBP 38420) the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a conviction under Sections 366 IPC and Sections 3/4 & 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Court laid down an important principle: where documentary proof of a victim’s age is unreliable or absent, and an ossification test indicates a possible majority when its margin of error is considered, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The appellant, Deul Kharole, had been sentenced to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl. The High Court reversed the conviction, emphasising procedural lapses by the trial court and the probative value of ossification evidence vis-à-vis a doubtful school register entry.

Summary of the Judgment

After analysing the record, the Division Bench (Justices Vivek Agarwal & Avanindra Kumar Singh) held:

The victim’s date of birth recorded in the school register lacked corroborative documents; even her parents admitted ignorance of her birth date.
An un-exhibited ossification (x-ray) report showed fusion of the iliac crest and other epiphyses, placing the victim’s skeletal age at approximately 17 years, with authoritative medical literature recognising a ±2-year margin.
Applying the permissible margin of error, the victim could have been 19 at the time of the incident—an adult beyond POCSO’s protection threshold.
The trial court erroneously ignored this report, failed to convert it into a court exhibit, and did not confront the accused with the DNA report in the Section 313 CrPC examination.
Relying on precedent that ossification tests must be given due weight where other evidence is “wholly unsatisfactory,” the High Court extended the benefit of doubt, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

Analysis

a. Precedents Cited

Alekh Prasad v. State (1964) 2 CrLJ 102 — Established that, in absence of reliable documents, ossification may be the “surer ground” for age determination.
Mohd. Said Khan v. State of M.P. (1985) 1 Crimes 1 — Described ossification as the best available, though not infallible, test for age.
Dholu v. State of M.P. (1985) 1 Crimes 403 & Jayamala v. Home Secy., J&K AIR 1982 SC 1297 — Recognised a ±2-year variation in ossification estimates.
Lallusingh Samgar v. State of M.P. 1996 MPLJ 452 — Held that an accused may rely on documents already in the record even if not proved by the prosecution.
Karan @ Fatiya v. State of M.P. (2023) SCC Online SC 217 — Affirmed that ossification offers only a broad assessment; courts must allow a reasonable margin.

These authorities collectively persuaded the Bench that the un-exhibited x-ray report, nonetheless part of the record, deserved decisive weight.

b. Legal Reasoning

Reliability of Age Evidence: The Court juxtaposed the infirm school register entry against the skeletal evidence. With both parents unable to vouch for the registered date, the documentary trail collapsed. Consequently, ossification became the primary indicator.
Margin of Error Principle: Citing Jayamala and other cases, the Bench adopted the accepted medical/legal tolerance of up to two years. Hence an indicated skeletal age of 17 could equally imply adulthood (18-19).
Benefit of Doubt: Criminal jurisprudence requires doubts to tilt in favour of the accused. Here, the possibility that the victim was a consenting adult negated the statutory presumption of minority integral to POCSO liability.
Procedural Irregularities:
- The trial court’s failure to mark the x-ray report or to recall the accused for supplementary 313 questioning after receiving the DNA report infringed fair-trial norms.
- Judicial training notwithstanding, such omissions risk miscarriages of justice; the High Court issued a pointed reminder.
Consequential Relief: With the substratum of minority removed, convictions under Sections 3/4 & 5(l)/6 POCSO and Section 366 IPC (kidnapping of a minor girl) could not survive, compelling an acquittal.

c. Impact

This judgment stakes out clear doctrinal ground in Madhya Pradesh (and persuasively elsewhere):

Elevated Status of Ossification Evidence: When documentary proof is shaky, ossification may decisively tilt the scale, provided the reasoning accounts for its recognised margin.
Gate-keeping Duty of Trial Courts: Judges must exhibit and scrutinise all medical reports on record and ensure the accused is properly examined under Section 313 CrPC whenever new incriminating material surfaces.
Guidance for POCSO Prosecutions: Prosecuting agencies must meticulously establish age through admissible documents; laxity may result in acquittal even in the face of positive DNA evidence.
Future Litigation: Defence counsel are likely to cite Deul Kharole to challenge age evidence that relies solely on school entries, especially where ossification results are favourable.
Policy Perspective: The ruling could spur legislative or administrative directives for uniform protocols on age verification, minimising reliance on contested registers.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ossification Test: An x-ray based medical procedure observing bone fusion stages to estimate age. Because bones ossify at predictable ages, their fusion provides an approximate age range.
Benefit of Doubt: A cornerstone of criminal law which mandates that if two plausible views exist, the one favouring the accused must prevail.
Section 313 CrPC Examination: A mandatory opportunity for the accused to explain circumstances appearing against them in evidence. Any new incriminating evidence (e.g., DNA report) requires a supplemental examination.
POCSO Act Threshold: The Act unequivocally applies when the victim is below 18. If the victim is over 18, POCSO charges collapse unless other offences independently stand.
School Register Evidence: Though admissible, entries in a school register alone do not prove age unless corroborated by authentic records (birth certificate, municipal register) or credible testimony.

Conclusion

Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh reinforces the judiciary’s duty to scrutinise age evidence rigorously, to respect medical uncertainty, and to jealously guard the accused’s right to a fair trial. The hallmark of the decision is its pragmatic approach: rather than treating the ossification report as a mere formal exhibit, the Court recognised its substantive value and, combined with a legally mandated margin of error, employed it to dispel reasonable doubt about the victim’s minority.

Practically, the ruling serves as both a caution and a compass—cautioning trial courts against procedural oversights and guiding future benches on harmonising medical science with legal standards. It is likely to be a frequently cited authority whenever the prosecution’s documentation of age proves fragile.

Ultimately, the case underscores that while the protection of children is paramount, such protection cannot come at the cost of compromising foundational criminal-law principles of evidence, fairness, and presumption of innocence.