SUPREME COURT SETS ASIDE JUVENILITY DECLARATION IN MURDER CASE

Case Name: Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.347 of 2018
Date: Thursday, the First Day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five
Quorum: Sri Justice Pankaj Mithal and Sri Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

 

Facts of the case 

• The appellant’s brother, Rajesh Singh, was allegedly murdered on 31.08.2011 by the respondent No.2 (Devi Singh) and his father, Lillu Singh. 
• The incident occurred when Lillu Singh and Devi Singh forcibly entered the appellant’s house at around 10 am and manhandled the appellant’s wife. When this incident was narrated to the appellant, Rajesh went to the accused duo to enquire about the same, and it was alleged that they later forcibly took Rajesh to their house, where Devi Singh shot him with a country-made pistol. 
• An FIR was registered in the matter under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Devender Singh had preferred the Misc. Application on the basis that he was a Juvenile at the time of the Incident, mentioning his date of birth as 18.04.1995, and so was 16 years 4 months &13 days on the date of the incident.
• The Juvenile Justice Board favoured him, which was upheld by the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court.

Issues Involved 

Whether the trial court correctly established the juvenility of respondent No.2 based on school certificates when contradictory documentary evidence suggested he was a major at the time of the incident.

 

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which outlines the procedure for determining the age of a juvenile in conflict with the law. It mandates that an age determination inquiry be conducted by the relevant court or board. 
2. Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of public documents
3. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, gives a definition for public documents.

 

Arguments by the parties 

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The arguments primarily centred around the appellant’s submission that the Trial Court had erred as it had allowed a transfer certificate from Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon, where Devi Singh was directly admitted to class V.
• It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court erred in placing reliance upon the School Certificate given by him, not when a document as Family Register under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 being a statutory record mentioned his year of birth to be 1991 making him 20 years old at the at the time of the incident.
• Additionally, the Voters’ List of 2012 showed his age as 22 years as of 01.01.2012.
• The counsel for the appellant also claimed that the trial court made an error in placing reliance on the date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate issued by the first school he attended, as there are contradictory documents as evidence fir this claim, especially in the light of the fact that the respondent no. 2 was directly admitted to class V by the first school he attended, recording his date of birth as 18.04.1995 based solely on oral representation by his father without any supporting documents.
• The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a medical examination by the Chief Medical Officer on 01.12.2012 assessed his age as 22 years.

Respondent No.2’s Arguments:

• The counsel for the respondent no.2’s arguments were mainly 3-fold. 
• Firstly, it was submitted that the Trial Court established the Respondent’s No.2’s juvenility based on the dates of birth consistently recorded in the transfer certificates of multiple schools attended by the respondent. The date of birth, recorded as 18.04.1995, in the school transfer certificate of the 4 schools he attended, established the fact that he was 16 years, 4 months and 13 days old at the time of the incident. Thus, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules 2007.   
• it was contended that the Trial Court correctly established the juvenility of the accused, according to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Rules, 2007, the juvenility of an accused can be determined by obtaining a matriculation certificate, in the absence whereof, the certificate provided from the school he first attended, in the absence whereof a birth certificate given by the corporation or a municipal authority and only in the absence of any of these documents, a medical opinion declaring the age of the juvenile
• Thirdly, the respondent had already been released by the Juvenile Justice Board after completing the maximum punishment of three years.

Respondent No.1’s Arguments (The State)

• The state supported appellant’s contention that juvenility should not be granted based on school certificates when contradictory evidence exists in the Family Register, Voters’ List, and Medical Report.

 

Analysis

• The Supreme Court in this case observed and said that the approach of the lower courts was improper, emphasising that courts have discretion to consider other relevant materials when determining juvenility.
• The Court also noted that Kaushik Modern Public School was not a government school, and its records would not qualify as “public documents” under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
• The headmaster’s testimony showed that the birth date entry of the accused/respondent 2 was made solely on oral representation by the respondent’s father without the backing of any documentary proof.
• The Court considered other conflicting documentary evidence, namely the Family Register (birth year shown as 1991), the Voters’ List (age shown as 21 in 2012), and the Medical Report (age shown as 22 in 2012).
• The Court, backing on Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2012), held that in serious offences like murder, the accused cannot use the statutory protection when documentary evidence which gives rise to a reasonable doubt exists.

 

Judgment

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Trial Court order dated 19.05.2015 and the High Court’s impugned order dated 29.03.2016.
• The Court also held that respondent No.2 was a major at the time of commission of the alleged offence and liable to be tried as an adult for Crime No. 385/2011 and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial on a priority basis by the end of July 2026.
• Ordered that respondent No.2 shall appear before the Trial Court within three weeks and may apply for bail on merits and set aside the order directing his release after completing three years under the Juvenile Justice Act. 
• It granted a set-off benefit of 3 years already served if the trial results in a conviction.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court established that when determining juvenility in serious criminal cases, courts must not adopt a casual approach when documentary evidence supporting minority gives rise to reasonable doubt. The Court emphasised that statutory protection under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be abused through unreliable school records based merely on oral representations, especially when credible public documents and medical evidence contradict the claim of the minority. 

 

“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 falls into the 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.”

WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB 

click here to read the judgement