When Roshan*, 17, was arrested on allegations of petty theft, he was forced to spend two months in an adult prison. The legal proceedings against him recently concluded with a Sessions Court in Delhi declaring him a juvenile, to be tried as a child under the Juvenile Justice Act. His story provides an insight into the systemic barriers that children from marginalised communities face while navigating the justice system, especially due to a lack of documentation to prove their age.
A Family in Distress
Roshan’s family moved to Delhi in search of livelihood when he was young. Roshan was the family’s sole earning member, working in a shoe factory to support his parents and siblings with his meagre income of Rs. 18,000. After his arrest, his family faced severe emotional and financial distress, and their repeated attempts to secure bail for Roshan failed. Moreover, Roshan was being tried as an adult, despite being under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged crime. In September 2024, Roshan’s family approached iProbono India for support in proving his juvenility, and ensuring his fair trial.
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), minors accused of crimes are entitled to child-friendly legal processes and more lenient punishments. However, proving juvenility requires robust evidence, often in the form of school records or a birth certificate. Unfortunately, Roshan had neither. The only document the police presented was a school record stating he was aged 19 years at the time of the offence.
The Fight for Justice
iProbono India’s panel advocate, Ashish Kumar, filed an application before the Sessions Court requesting an age inquiry under the JJ Act. We argued that the school records were unreliable since they were created without supporting documents like a birth certificate or an affidavit from his parents. Citing a landmark Supreme Court judgment, P. Yuva Prakash vs State Represented by Inspector of Police (2023 SCC ONLINE SC 846), we contended that such records could not be trusted without corroborating evidence. In a significant gain for Roshan, the court agreed to conduct an age inquiry. The Sessions Court transferred Roshan from the adult jail where he was being held to a Place of Safety, where Children in Conflict with Law aged over 16 years are placed.
The inquiry revealed that Roshan’s school principal had recorded his age as a mere guess, without any supporting documents to validate it. This breakthrough led the court to dismiss the school records as unreliable. The court then ordered a medical examination to determine Roshan’s age. The medical board constituted to conduct the bone ossification test includes a radiologist and a dental expert. Bone ossification tests analyse the fusion of bones to estimate age, a standard medical practice in cases where official records are unavailable.
The medical board reported that Roshan’s age was “more than 22 years old”, but failed to provide a precise range. It also failed to include findings from the dental expert, who found Roshan to be “about 18 years old”. We challenged this flawed report and examined the medical experts before the court to bring out the fact that Roshan’s third molar tooth was not found during his dental examination. This was relevant as the third molar tooth usually begins its growth at 15-16 years and continues till 21 years, this indicating that he was likely to be at the younger end of this age range. Our team also emphasised that medical tests must include an age range and should not be mechanically relied upon without judicial scrutiny. The court accepted our arguments and relied upon the statement of Roshan’s mother as well as the opinion of the dentist: that Roshan was about 18 years old. Our panel lawyer then used the two-year margin of error typically applied in such cases to successfully argue that Roshan deserved the benefit of the doubt, i.e. to be considered 16 years old.
In a notable decision, the Sessions Court ruled in favour of Roshan, declaring him a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and transferred his case to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), ensuring a child-friendly legal process.
The Bigger Picture
Roshan’s case is a stark reminder of the systemic gaps in India’s juvenile justice system. Families from underprivileged and migrant backgrounds often lack documentation to assert juvenility, leaving their children vulnerable to wrongful incarceration in adult jails. Investigative agencies frequently rely on incomplete or questionable age evidence, such as unverified school records. Furthermore, courts sometimes accept medical tests without applying independent judgment.
Roshan’s case demonstrates the importance of a holistic approach to justice—one that prioritises the child’s best interests and gives them the benefit of doubt in borderline cases. It also highlights the critical role of organisations like iProbono India and dedicated legal professionals in navigating these complex legal battles.
Our panel lawyer managed to secure bail for Roshan, allowing him to work and provide for his family once again. His story is one of resilience and hope—a testament to the power of legal advocacy and perseverance in the legal process. It is also a reminder of the many other vulnerable children who may lack such resources, and the impact that quality legal support can have on their lives.
