Avoid Hyper-technical Approach In Deciding Juvenility Claim; If Two Views Possible, Lean In Favour Of Accused : Supreme Court

Revealing a rather unpleasant truth, the Supreme Court of India on Monday lamented that once children are caught in the web of adult criminal justice system, it is difficult for them to get out of it unscathed.

A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala further observed that awareness about child rights and correlated duties remain low among the functionaries of the juvenile justice system.

"Awareness about the rights of the child and correlated duties remain low among the functionaries of the juvenile justice system. 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 bitter truth is that even the legal aid programmes are mired in systemic bottlenecks and often it is only at a considerably belated stage of the proceeding that the person becomes aware of the rights, including the right to be differently treated on the ground of juvenility."

The Court further observed that the main object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act should be kept in mind as the focus of the legislation is on the juvenile's reformation and rehabilitation.

The Court was considering a petition filed by a convict accused undergoing life imprisonment for the offence of murder seeking to direct the Uttar Pradesh government to verify his exact age on the day the crime was committed.

It was his case that as on September 10, 1982, i.e., the date of commission of offence, he was only around 15 years.

Therefore, he could not have been put to trial along with other co-accused and should have been dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, prevailing at that point of time. He prayed that the respondent State be directed to get the claim in regard to the juvenility verified through the concerned Sessions Court or the Juvenile Justice Board.

Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for the writ applicant further made the following submissions:

Although till the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6048 od 2016 by this Court in 2016, the convict had not raised the plea of juvenility, yet the law permits him to raise such a plea even at this point of time having regard to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2011.

It is submitted that there is clinching evidence on record as on date in the form of certificate issued by the Medical Board as well as the Family Register to indicate that in the year 1982, he was aged 15 years.

Opposing the application, Additional Advocate General Ardhendhumauli Kr. Prasad, argued that the Family Register is not admissible in evidence and the entries made are not decisive to determine the age.

It is argued that the writ applicant has not placed on record any document of any educational institution. Also, no ossification test or modern recognized method was adopted for the purpose of determination of age, it was added.

What the Court held

In 2000, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was replaced by the JJ Act, 2000.

Going through the provisions of the Act, the Court said that as per Section 20 of the 2000 Act, in all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the Court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the Court would not pass an order of sentence against him but the juvenile would be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act.

Further, referring to rule 12 (3) (b) of the JJ Rules, 2007, the Court observed that while conducting an inquiry about the juvenility of an accused, the Juvenile Justice Board would seek evidence by obtaining the matriculation or equivalent certificates and in the absence whereof the date of birth certificate from the school first attended and in absence whereof the birth certificate given by a corporation or a Municipal authority or a Panchayat.

"Thus, Section 7A(1) of the 2000 Act and the proviso thereto provided that a claim of juvenility might be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the 2000 Act and the Rules made 40 thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so, on or before the date of commencement of the 2000 Act."

Plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage

The Court then opined that 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.

"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 42 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."

Avoid hypertechnical approach in deciding juvenility claim

Relying on the judgement in Ashwani Kumar Saxena's case, the court said, while deciding whether an accused is juvenile or not, a hyper technical approach should not be adopted. If two views are possible on the same evidence, then the Court should lean to the one, favourable to the accused.

"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."

The Court opined that it is the documentary evidence that plays a major role in determining the age of a juvenile in conflict of law. And, only when such documents or certificates 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 reminded.

The Court further observed that 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. Normally, once someone's date of birth is recorded as per law, there shouldn't be any dispute. However, 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 concept of bone-ossification test also found a mention in the Court's detailed judgement. The test is not an exact science that can provide us with the exact age of the person, the court viewed. "As discussed above, the individual characteristics such as the growth rate of bones and skeletal structures can affect the accuracy of this method….The courts in India have accepted the fact that after the age of thirty years the ossification test cannot be relied upon for age determination."

With these observations, the Sessions Court, Agra was directed to examine the claim of the writ applicant to juvenility in regard with law within one month.

The Sessions Court was also asked to ensure that the writ applicant convict is medically examined by taking an ossification test or any other modern recognized method of age determination.

After which, the Sessions Court should submit its report in the matter.

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