CASE TITLE – Vinod Katara v. State of U.P
CASE NUMBER – Writ Petition (CRL.) No(S). 121 OF 2022
DATED ON – 05.03.2024
QUORUM – Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner herein was arraigned as an accused for the offence of murder committed on 10th September, 1982. The petitioner along with three co-accused was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 6th January, 1986 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The convicts including the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1986 before the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of appeal, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court was suspended and he was released on bail. The said appeal came to be rejected vide judgment dated 4th March, 2016 and the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court were affirmed. The petitioner was taken into custody after the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while considering a PIL bearing Crl.(PIL) Misc. W.P. No. 855 of 2012, vide order dated 24th May, 2012 directed the Juvenile Justice Board(s) (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Board’) in the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold enquiries for determination of age of the convicts who were languishing in jail wherein the possibility was felt that the convict might have been a juvenile at the time of incident. Pursuant to the said order of the High Court, the petitioner herein who was at the relevant point of time lodged in District Jail, Mathura was subjected to examination by a Medical Board on 10th December, 2021. The Medical Board conducted X-rays of the skull and sternum of the petitioner and gave an opinion that on the date of the report, the petitioner herein was around 56 years of age. Based on the said report of the Medical Board, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition claiming that he was around 15 years of age on the date of the incident i.e. 10th September, 1982. An inquiry in pursuance was conducted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Agra who had forwarded a report dated 21st October, 2022 opining that from the contemporaneous evidence placed during the inquiry, the date of birth of the petitioner was 2nd July, 1960 and he was major on the date of the incident.
ISSUE
Whether there is substantial evidence to prove that the accussed/petitioner was a major when he committed the crime and should he be convicted as such.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently and fervently contended that the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge in the report dated 21st October, 2022 that it would not be possible to determine the age of the accused accurately based on the X-ray examination is unsustainable in light of the earlier medical report dated 10th December, 2021 wherein the Medical Board has given a pertinent opinion that the age of the petitioner as on the said date was around 56 years. He vehemently contended that the attendance register/school record on which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge placed implicit reliance is not a reliable piece of evidence because the concerned Principal of the school neither verified the documents nor was he examined in evidence. He contended that as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘JJ Act’), where contemporaneous reliable school record is not available, the Court can place reliance either on other documentary evidence or in absence thereof, the Medical Board’s opinion based on X-ray examination can be taken into account to determine the age of the person claiming juvenility.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Learned AAG vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the inquiry report had been submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, as a consequence of direction given by the Supreme Court, and such inquiry report is based on detailed process of collection of evidence and analysis thereof. He submitted that the inquiry officer, i.e., the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, after minute appreciation and evaluation of the evidence has categorically found that the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the contemporaneous school record was 2nd July, 1960, which is the actual date of birth of the petitioner and as a consequence, the petitioner does not deserve the relief claimed for.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after having minutely perused the inquiry report and the evidence led during the inquiry, were of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge that the actual date of birth of the accused petitioner is 2nd July, 1960 and the opinion of the Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is apropos and deserves to be accepted. They stated that Section 94(2) of the JJ Act provides for the mode of determination of age. In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat. In the wake of the above discussion, The Hon’ble Supreme Court found no merit in the writ petition which was then dismissed as such.
“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 – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
