2012 Supreme(SC) 295

2012 (3) Supreme 9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Om Prakash — Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2411/2011)
Decided on : 13-04-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
In a situation when the school record itself is not free from ambiguity and conclusively prove the minority of the accused, medical opinion cannot be allowed to be overlooked or treated to be of no consequence.

Headnote:Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000- Section 49 -Prosecution of Respondent accused 2 along with one other for committing rape on a minor girl aged 13½ years- Application filed Respondent accused 2 stating that he being a juvenile offender may be sent to Juvenile Court for trial- Allowed-Revision Petition-Dismissed-Appeal-Held trial court as well as High Court while passing the impugned order could not arrive at any finding at all as to whether the accused was a major or minor on the date of the incident and yet gave the benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation to an accused whose plea of minority that he was below the age of 18 years itself was in doubt-Respondent No.2 and his father failed to prove that Respondent No.2 was a minor at the time of commission of offence and hence could not have been granted the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act which undoubtedly is a benevolent legislation but cannot be allowed to be availed of by an accused who has taken the plea of juvenility merely as an effort to hide his real age so as to create a doubt in the mind of the courts –Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court as also the courts below set aside- Appeal allowed (Paras 20 to 26)

        Protection under the Juvenile Justice Act –Entitlement to-If there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and the documentary evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he would be entitled for this special protection under the Juvenile Justice Act- But when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted - Under such circumstance, the medical evidence based on scientific investigation will have to be given due weight and precedence over the evidence based on school administration records which give rise to hypothesis and speculation about the age of the accused (Para 18)

        Benefit of Juvenile Justice Act –Entitlement to -The benefit of benevolent legislation under the Juvenile Justice Act obviously will offer protection to a genuine child accused/juvenile who does not put the court into any dilemma as to whether he is a juvenile or not by adducing evidence in support of his plea of minority but in absence of the same, reliance placed merely on shaky evidence like the school admission register which is not proved or oral evidence based on conjectures leading to further ambiguity, cannot be relied upon in preference to the medical evidence for assessing the age of the accused (Para 23)

       Facts of the Case :

        The questions which arose for consideration in present appeal were:-

       (i) whether the respondent/accused herein who is alleged to have committed an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and other allied sections along with a co-accused who already stands convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC, can be allowed to avail the benefit of protection to a juvenile in order to refer him for trial to a juvenile court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 although the trial court and the High Court could not record a conclusive finding of fact that the respondent-accused was below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident?

       (ii) whether the principle and benefit of ‘benevolent legislation’ relating to Juvenile Justice Act could be applied in cases where two views regarding determination of the age of child/accused was possible and the so-called child could not be held to be a juvenile on the basis of evidence adduced?

       (iii) whether medical evidence and other attending circumstances would be of any value and assistance while determining the age of a juvenile, if the academic record certificates do not conclusively prove the age of the accused ?

       (iv) whether reliance should be placed on medical evidence if the certificates relating to academic records is deliberately with held in order to conceal the age of the accused and authenticity of the medical evidence regarding the age is under challenge?

       Findings of the Court :

        A. Respondent No.2 Vijay Kumar and his father have failed to prove that Respondent No.2 was a minor at the time of commission of offence and hence could not have been granted the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act which undoubtedly is a benevolent legislation but cannot be allowed to be availed of by an accused who has taken the plea of juvenility merely as an effort to hide his real age so as to create a doubt in the mind of the courts below who thought it appropriate to grant him the benefit of a juvenile merely by adopting the principle of benevolent legislation but missing its vital implication that although the Juvenile Justice Act by itself is a piece of benevolent legislation, the protection under the same cannot be made available to an accused who in fact is not a juvenile but seeks shelter merely by using it as a protective umbrella or statutory shield.

        B. Juvenile Justice Act which is certainly meant to treat a child accused with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and settle into the mainstream of society, the same cannot be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences. This would clearly be treated as an effort to weaken the justice dispensation system and hence cannot be encouraged. The Court held just and appropriate to set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court as also the courts below . Appeal was allowed