2021 Supreme(SC) 108

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HEMANT GUPTA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
RAM VIJAY SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 2898 OF 2020)
Decided On : 25-02-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Determination of age of juvenile – First attempt to determine age is by assessing physical appearance of person when brought before Board or Committee. It is only in case of doubt, process of age determination by seeking evidence becomes necessary.
(2) When Ossification test cannot yield trustworthy and reliable results, such test cannot be made a basis to determine age of person concerned on date of incident.
(3) A part statement of a witness can be believed even though some part of statement may not be relied upon by court. Maxim Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus is not the rule applied by courts in India.

Headnote:

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 9(2) and 94 – Determination of age of juvenile – First attempt to determine age is by assessing physical appearance of person when brought before Board or Committee – It is only in case of doubt, process of age determination by seeking evidence becomes necessary – At that stage, when a person is around 18 years of age, Ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining approximate age of a person in conflict with law – However, when the person is around 40-55 years of age, structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining age. (Para 15)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 9(2) and 94 – Murder – Common intention – Conviction – Plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage even after finality of proceedings before this Court – In present case, appellant has raised plea of juvenility before High Court – There is no Date of Birth Certificate from school or matriculation or equivalent certificate or a Birth Certificate given by a Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat – Therefore, clause (iii) of Section 94(2) of Act to determine age by an Ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on orders of Committee or Board comes into play – Once statute has provided Ossification test as basis of determining juvenility, findings of such Ossification test cannot be ignored – Medical report in support of bail order is not available – Such order granting bail cannot be conclusive determination of age of appellant – It was an interim order of bail pending trial but in absence of a medical report, it cannot be conclusively held that appellant was juvenile on date of incident – When Ossification test cannot yield trustworthy and reliable results, such test cannot be made a basis to determine age of person concerned on date of incident – In absence of any reliable trustworthy medical evidence to find out age of appellant, Ossification test conducted in year 2020 when appellant was 55 years of age cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on date of incident – Since there is a document signed by appellant much before date of occurrence, appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile on date of incident as he was more than 21 years of age as per his application submitted to obtain Arms Licence – Merely because a prosecution witness was not believed in respect of another accused, testimony of said witness cannot be disregarded qua present appellant – Lathi may be common article with villagers but use of lathi as a weapon of offence is a finding of fact recorded by Courts below – Prosecution case corroborated by medical evidence – There are sufficient number of injuries caused by Axe and Lathi on person of deceased – Trial court as well as High Court had appreciated entire evidence to return a finding of guilt against appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21 to 24)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – A part statement of a witness can be believed even though some part of statement may not be relied upon by court – Maxim Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus is not the rule applied by courts in India – Indian courts have always been reluctant to apply the principle as it is only a rule of caution – It is quality of evidence which is relevant in criminal trial and not quantity. (Paras 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.4.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Vide the said order, the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed.

Findings of Court:

When Ossification test cannot yield trustworthy and reliable results, such test cannot be made a basis to determine the age of the person concerned on the date of incident. Therefore, in the absence of any reliable trustworthy medical evidence to find out age of the appellant, Ossification test conducted in year 2020 when the appellant was 55 years of age cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on the date of the incident.

Result : Appeal dismissed.