Lodging Juveniles In Adult Prisons Amounts To Deprivation Of Their Personal Liberty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty.

Once a child is caught in the web of adult criminal justice system, it is difficult for the child to get out of it unscathed, the bench comprising  Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala observed while considering a writ petition filed by a murder accused undergoing life imprisonment seeking appropriate directions to the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh to verify the exact age of the convict on the date of the commission of the offence. According to the convict, on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 10.09.1982 he was a juvenile aged around 15 years. 

The court directed that he be subjected to the ossification test at the Civil Hospital, Allahabad or any other latest medical age determination test.

Vinod Katara and others were convicted in a murder case by the Trial Court in the year 1986. The Allahabad High Court dismissed their appeals in the year 2016. The Special Leave Petition filed by Katara was dismissed by the Apex Court. In the said SLP, he had not raised the question of him being a juvenile on the date of the commission of the alleged offence.

Later, upon medical examination, the Medical Board gave its report certifying that on 10.09.1982 i.e. the date of the commission of the alleged offence, he could have been around 15 years of age as on the date of the medical examination. He also obtained a document in the form of Family Register  issued under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 wherein the year of birth of the writ applicant herein is shown as 1968. If 1968 is the correct birth year of the writ applicant herein, then in 1982 he was about 14 years of age. Thus he approached the Apex Court by filing writ petition.

On the issue of delay in lodging juvenility claim, the court observed thus:

"In view of Section 7A of the 2000 Act referred to hereinabove, applicable to the writ applicant herein, the plea of juvenility could be raised in any court, at any stage even after the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. In the case of the writ applicant herein, his Special Leave Petition had also been dismissed by this Court. However, this Court is still obliged to consider the plea of juvenility taken by the writ applicant and grant him appropriate relief. The fact that the 2000 Act has later been replaced by the 2015 Act would make no difference."

The court added that in deciding whether an accused is juvenile or not, a hyper technical approach should not be adopted.

"While appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he is a juvenile, if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases. The inquiry contemplated is not a roving inquiry. The Court can accept as evidence something more than an affidavit i.e. documents, certificates etc. as evidence in proof of age. A mere opinion by a person as to the accused looking one or two years older than the age claimed by him (as the opinion of the head master in the present case) or the fact that the accused told his age to be more than what he alleges in the case while being arrested by the police officer would not hold much water. It is the documentary evidence placed on record that plays a major role in determining the age of a juvenile in conflict of law. And, it is only in the cases where the documents or certificates placed on record by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are found to be fabricated or manipulated, that the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical test for age determination.", the court said.

The court further observed that the age of a person if the birth is registered in accordance with law and date of birth is entered in the school records on the basis of genuine record of birth. It added:

"However, in India, the factors like poverty, illiteracy,  ignorance, indifference and inadequacy of the system often lead to there being no documentary proof of a person's age. Therefore, in those cases where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, often certain medical tests are resorted to forage determination in absence of the documents enumerated in Section 94 of the Act 2015. The rule allowing plea of juvenility to be raised at a considerably belated stage has its rationale in the contemporary child rights jurisprudence which requires the stakeholders to act in the best interest of the child."

The court issued the following directions in the case:

(i) We direct the Sessions Court, Agra to examine the claim of the writ applicant to juvenility in regard with law within one month from the date of communication of this order; (ii) The concerned Sessions Court shall also examine the authenticity and genuineness of the Family Register sought to be relied upon by writ applicant convict considering that the document does not appear to be contemporaneous. This document assumes importance, more particularly in the light of the fact that the ossification test report may not be absolutely helpful in determining the exact age of the writ applicant on the date of incident. If the Family Register on record is ultimately found to be authentic and genuine, then we may not have to fall upon the ossification test report. In such circumstances, the Presiding Officer concerned shall pay adequate attention towards this document and try to ascertain the authenticity and genuineness of the same. If need be, the statements of the persons concerned i.e. from the concerned government department may also be recorded;  (iii) The Sessions Court shall ensure that the writ applicant convict is medically examined by taking an ossification test or any other modern recognized method of age determination; (iv) The Sessions Court concerned shall submit its report as regards the aforesaid to this Court within one month from the date of communication of this order; (v) The Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to Sessions Court, Agra; (vi) We request the learned counsel appearing for the State to take appropriate steps to facilitate the Sessions Court to complete the enquiry.

Case details

Vinod Katara vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757 | WP(Crl) 121 OF 2022 | 12 September 2022 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala

Headnotes

Juvenile Justice  - Plea of juvenility could be raised in any court, at any stage even after the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition- Where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, often certain medical tests are resorted to forage determination in absence of the documents - While appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he is a juvenile, if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases. The inquiry contemplated is not a roving inquiry. The Court can accept as evidence something more than an affidavit i.e. documents, certificates etc. as evidence in proof of age. A mere opinion by a person as to the accused looking one or two years older than the age claimed by him (as the opinion of the head master in the present case) or the fact that the accused told his age to be more than what he alleges in the case while being arrested by the police officer would not hold much water. It is the documentary evidence placed on record that plays a major role in determining the age of a juvenile in conflict of law. And, it is only in the cases where the documents or certificates placed on record by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are found to be fabricated or manipulated, that the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical test for age determination.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment