Judicial precedent establishes that authoritative school records are prioritized over Aadhaar for age determination under juvenile law, ensuring statutory protections for minors.

ORDER:

Criminal Revision Case was filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2024 in J.C.C.No.02 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu (for brevity ‘the learned Trial Court’).

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

2. Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Court below is wholly contrary to law, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case. The finding that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors is bereft of any substantive foundation and is vitiated by grave misappreciation of material on record. The reliance placed by the Court below upon the photocopies of marks lists, which are neither conclusive nor legally admissible for determination of age, is manifestly erroneous. The ‘learned Trial Court’ below failed to appreciate that the said documents do not constitute reliable proof of age and thereby committed a serious error in treating Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as juveniles in conflict with law.

3. It is further urged that the authentic documentary evidence, namely the Aadhaar cards of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, clearly establishes that both were aged more than 18 years as on the date of the offence. Respondent No.2’s year of birth is recorded as 1999, and Respondent No.3’s date of birth is 09.01.1999, which indisputably makes them 19 years of age at the relevant time. The learned Court below, in complete disregard of such unimpeachable evidence, erroneously declared them juveniles. The Petitioner relies upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj v. State of Haryana , 1(2022)6SCC187, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that marks lists cannot be treated as determinative criteria for age assessment, and that reliable statutory documents must prevail.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the antecedents of Respondent No.2, as borne out from C.C.No.1904/2017 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, demonstrate that he was treated as an adult offender in prior proceedings. In the said case, the police themselves recorded his age as 20 years, and he never raised the plea of juvenility. The matter was compromised in Lok Adalat, yet within a month thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 and 3, along with other accused, committed the present heinous offence resulting in the death of the informant’s father. These crucial facts, which go to the root of the issue, were completely ignored by the learned Court below, thereby rendering its order unsustainable. The failure to consider such antecedents and the suppression of the plea of juvenility in earlier proceedings clearly disentitles Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from claiming the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity ‘the J.J.Act’).

5. It is submitted that the learned Court below ought to have directed a medical board examination or FSL determination to conclusively ascertain the age of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, instead of mechanically relying upon marks lists. The omission to adopt such a legally mandated course of action vitiates the entire order. The impugned order is thus erroneous, unsound, and wholly unsustainable in law. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, urges to set aside the order of the ‘learned Trial Court’ and declare Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as adult offenders, amenable to trial under the ordinary criminal law, in the interest of ju