Case Title – Vinod Katara vs. State of U.P.
Case No. – Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 121 of 2022
Dated on – 5th March, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the Case –
Vinod Katara, was convicted along with three co-accused for murder on September 10, 1982, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court on January 6, 1986, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. Upon appeal, the Allahabad High Court suspended the petitioner’s sentence and released him on bail, but later, on March 4, 2016, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence, leading to his custody. The petitioner’s subsequent Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed on August 16, 2016. Pursuant to a High Court order directing the Juvenile Justice Boards in Uttar Pradesh to determine the ages of certain convicts potentially juveniles at the time of their offenses, a Medical Board assessed the petitioner on December 10, 2021, estimating his age to be around 56 years. The petitioner claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the crime and sought verification of this claim. Upon direction, the Sessions Court, Agra, conducted an inquiry and reported that the petitioner was born on July 2, 1960, making him a major at the time of the incident. This report relied on contemporaneous school records over the disputed family register and ossification test results. The Supreme Court permitted both the parties to submit their response thereto.
Legal Provisions –
Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Contentions of the Petitioner –
The petitioner contended that the conclusions drawn by the Additional District and Sessions Judge regarding the petitioner’s age were unsustainable, arguing that the earlier medical report dated December 10, 2021, which estimated the petitioner’s age to be around 56 years, should be given precedence. The petitioner asserted that the school records relied upon by the Additional District and Sessions Judge were unreliable, as the concerned school principal did not verify these documents nor was examined in evidence. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the family register, despite alleged overwriting, should be considered authentic, indicating that the petitioner was born in 1968 and thus a juvenile at the time of the incident. The petitioner invoked Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, suggesting that in the absence of reliable school records, the court should rely on other documentary evidence or the Medical Board’s opinion. Consequently, the petitioner argued that the petitioner was entitled to relief and release from prison based on the claim of juvenility at the time of the offense.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The respondent vehemently opposed the petitioner’s claims, asserting that the inquiry conducted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge was thorough and based on detailed evidence collection and analysis. The respondent argued that the contemporaneous school records, which indicated the petitioner’s date of birth as July 2, 1960, were credible and demonstrated that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time of the offense. The respondent maintained that the family register presented by the petitioner was forged and unreliable, as confirmed by the testimony of the Assistant Block Development Officer and the lack of original records in the Panchayat. Additionally, the respondent pointed out that the ossification test, which the petitioner relied upon, was uncertain and unreliable for age determination after 25 years, as per the Medical Board’s opinion. The respondent concluded that the inquiry report’s findings, supported by substantial evidence, were accurate and that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed relief, thus urging the court to dismiss the writ petition.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
The Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the inquiry report submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Court noted that the inquiry involved detailed examination of both documentary evidence and witness testimonies. The family register presented by the petitioner was deemed forged and unreliable, especially given the inconsistencies noted, such as the improbable age difference between the petitioner and his wife. Furthermore, the school records, which indicated the petitioner’s birth date as July 2, 1960, were found credible and consistent. The Court acknowledged the Medical Board’s opinion that ossification tests are unreliable for determining age beyond 25 years. Emphasizing the hierarchy established in Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prioritizes school records over ossification tests for age determination, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time of the offense. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the findings of the inquiry report and the previous judicial orders.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Anurag Das
