The claim of juvenility must be substantiated by credible evidence adhering to statutory rules; mere unreliable documents are insufficient.

1. The petitioner, S. Nirmala who is the wife of the detenu P. Sekar, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition to release her husband from detention by extending to him the beneficial provisions of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' ], as he had not completed 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence, for which he is in incarceration as a convict.

2. The detenu P. Sekar was involved in the offence that took place on 05.01.1997 and a case in Upper Koonoor Police Station Cr. No. 14/1997 for offence under S.364, S.302, S.392 and S.201 IPC was registered against him by the third respondent police. Along with two others, he was tried in S. C. No. 31/1998 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Oothagamandalam and was convicted and sentenced to death.

3. This Court in RT. No. 5/2000 and Crl. A. No. 903/2000 commuted the death sentence to one of life imprisonment, but confirmed the conviction. The wife of the said Sekar has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition contending that, at the time of commission of the offence i.e. on 05.01.1997 he was a juvenile and therefore, the life imprisonment awarded to him should be quashed.

4. This Court, by order dated 19.01.2012 directed tine Trial Court to conduct an enquiry to determine the age of the detenu as on the date of commission of the offence. The Trial Court conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 02.04.2012 which was not found to be satisfactory and therefore, this Court by a further order dated 05.12.2013, once again directed the Trial Court to conduct a fresh enquiry, by affording opportunity to the accused. Accordingly, the Trial Court has conducted the enquiry and has sent a report dated 03.08.2013 after examining two witnesses on the side of the detenu and marking three exhibits submitted by them. Nirmala, who is the wife of the detenu, examined herself as PW I before the Trial Court and submitted that her husband was born on 16.08.1979 and that she had obtained a birth certificate to that effect from the Municipality on 13.02.2012. Based on this she is claiming the benefits of juvenility for the detenu. The petitioner Nirmala, had not produced any other record, apart from the said Birth Certificate which was marked as Ex.P1.

5. R.8 - B of the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Rules, 2001 states that while deciding the juvenility of a person, the enquiry authority shall obtain either:
(i) the Birth Certificate issued by a Corporation or Municipality or a Panchayat; or
(ii) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence;
(iii) a certificate recording the date of birth from a School [other than the play school] attended by the child or juvenile.
If none of these three documents are available, then only the Ossification Test should be done in the Government Hospital in the District.

6. In this case, the Trial Court has observed that the birth itself was registered only on 23.12.2011 and not contemporaneously or within a reasonable time from the alleged date of birth, namely 16.08.1979. The petitioner is only the wife of the detenu and naturally she would not have direct knowledge about the detenu's birth and other details. The Trial Court, in our opinion, has rightly not given any credence to this Certificate as it is obvious that the same has been registered only on 23.12.2011 for the purpose of getting the benefits under the Act. The petitioner has filed a. horoscope in order to show that the date of birth was 16.08.1979. Horoscope is not a document that could be relied upon in O.1 to arrive at the d