Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Vinod Katara – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition(Crl.) No(S). 121 of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Determination of age of murder convict – In order of priorities, date of birth certificate from school stands at highest pedestal whereas Ossification Test has been kept at last rung to be considered – Medical Board conducted X-rays of skull and sternum of petitioner and gave opinion that on the date of report, petitioner was around 56 years of age – Based on report of Medical Board, petitioner has preferred instant writ petition claiming that he was around 15 years of age on the date of incident i.e. 10th September, 1982 – Date of birth of petitioner recorded in school is 2nd July, 1960 – Conclusions drawn by Additional District and Sessions Judge that actual date of birth of accused petitioner is 2nd July, 1960 and opinion of Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is apropos and deserves to be accepted – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 5, 18, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was arraigned as an accused for offence of murder committed on 10th September, 1982. Petitioner along with three co-accused was convicted by Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
Section 94(2) of JJ Act provides for the mode of determination of age. In order of priorities, date of birth certificate from school stands at the highest pedestal whereas Ossification Test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in absence of criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. This writ petition arises from a very peculiar set of facts and circumstances.
2. The petitioner herein was arraigned as an accused for the offence of murder committed on 10th September, 1982. The petitioner along with three co-accused was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 6th January, 1986 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. The convicts including the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1986 before the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of appeal, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court was suspended and he was released on bail. The said appeal came to be rejected vide judgment dated 4th March, 2016 and the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court were affirmed. The petitioner was taken into custody after the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.
4. The petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6048 of 2016 assailing the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16th August, 2016.
5. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while considering a PIL bearing Crl.(PIL) Misc. W.P. No. 855 of 2012, vide order dated 24th May, 2012 directed the Juvenile Justice Board(s) (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Board’) in the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold enquiries for determination of age of the convicts who were languishing in jail wherein the possibility was felt that the convict might have been a juvenile at the time of incident. Pursuant to the said order of the High Court, the petitioner herein who was at the relevant point of time lodged in District Jail, Mathura was subjected to examination by a Medical Board on 10th December, 2021. The Medical Board conducted X-rays of the skull and sternum of the petitioner and gave an opinion that on the date of the report, the petitioner herein was around 56 years of age. Based on the said report of the Medical Board, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition claiming that he was around 15 years of age on the date of the incident i.e. 10th September, 1982 and has sought the following substantive relief :-
A. issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent State to verify the claim of juvenility and thereafter pass necessary orders as it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
6. The matter was heard at length on 12th September, 2022, and this Court passed an order with the following pertinent directions:-
(ii) The concerned Sessions Court shall also examine the authenticity and genuineness of the Family Register sought to be relied upon by the writ applicant convict considering that the document does not appear to be contemporaneous. This document assumes importance, more particularly in 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 the 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 th
Determination of age – In order of priorities, date of birth certificate from school stands at highest pedestal whereas Ossification Test has been kept at last rung to be considered.
The determination of juvenility requires careful consideration of evidence, including school records, birth certificates, and medical opinion, with the burden of proof on the claimant.
The court determined that documents indicating age must be prioritized as per Juvenile Justice Act, with the accused confirmed as a juvenile based on familial ages and educational certificates.
The court ruled that age determination for juveniles must consider all available evidence, allowing a margin of error in ossification tests, ultimately declaring the petitioner juvenile.
Writ of habeas corpus – Criminal trial – Claim of juvenile – determination of age – Certain limitations to this writ and the most basic of such limitation is that the Court, before issuing any writ o....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence in age determination inquiries and the consequences of relying on fabricated documents in determining juve....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
