Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Rishipal Singh Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 6223 of 2021
Decided On : 18-11-2021
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 14, 36 and 94 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Plea of juvenility – Claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after final disposal of case – Delay in raising claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim – It can also be raised for first time before Apex Court – An application claiming juvenility could be made either before Court or JJ Board – When issue of juvenility arises before Court, it would be under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 9 of JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is brought before a Committee or JJ Board, Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 applies – If an application is filed before Court claiming juvenility, provision of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating age of person as nearly as may be – When an application claiming juvenility is made under Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 before JJ Board when matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a Court, then procedure contemplated under Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 would apply – Under said provision if JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether person brought before it is a child or not, Board shall undertake process of age determination by seeking evidence and age recorded by JJ Board to be age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age of that person – Degree of proof required in such a proceeding before JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking claim of juvenility when trial is before concerned criminal court, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which case regarding commission of offence is pending (vide Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015. (Para 29)
(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 14, 36 and 94 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Plea of juvenility – When a claim for juvenility is raised, burden is on person raising claim to satisfy Court to discharge initial burden – However, documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of JJ Rules 2007 made under JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of Court – On the basis of aforesaid documents presumption of juvenility may be raised – Said presumption is however not conclusive proof of age of juvenility and same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by opposite side – Procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring age of person as a juvenile sought before JJ Board when case is pending for trial before concerned criminal court – In case of an inquiry, Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of Section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence – Also age recorded by JJ Board shall be deemed to be true age of person brought before it – Standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance – It is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine age of a person – It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by parties in each case – Hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of accused in support of plea that he was a juvenile – If two views are possible on same evidence, court should lean in favour of holding accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases – This is in order to ensure that benefit of JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to juvenile in conflict with law – At the same time, Court should ensure that JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. (Para 29)
(C) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 14, 36 and 94 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 35 – Determination of age – When determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents – Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by Court or JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act viz., Section 35 and other provisions – Ossification Test cannot be sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination – Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of JJ Act, 2015. (Para 29)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 14, 36 and 94 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Murder, attempt to murder and hurt – Common intention – Accused declared as a juvenile delinquent – Respondent no.2 was only 15 years 7 months of age on the date of incident which in any case is less than 16 years of age – There is no other document indicating date of birth of second respondent contrary to what has been indicated in matriculation certificate – Discrepancy in date of birth does not arise herein – No contra evidence to documents produced by second respondent have been produced by appellant herein – In the circumstances, Court not inclined to differ from order of High court which sustained judgment of District & Sessions Court as well as of JJ Board in this case – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 43, 46 and 49)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.430 of 2021 whereby the High Court rejected the aforesaid criminal revision filed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive Court), Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2020. The said criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat allowing the Miscellaneous Case No.16 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station at Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, and declaring the accused–Nishant Solanki @ Nishu (respondent no.2 herein) as a juvenile delinquent.
Findings of Court:
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 raises a presumption regarding juvenility of the age of child brought before the JJ board or Committee. But in case the Board or Committee has reasonable grounds for doubt about the person brought before it is a child or not, it can undertake the process of determination of age by seeking evidence. Thus, In initial stage a presumption that the child brought before Committee or the JJ Board is a juvenile has to be drawn by the said authorities. The said presumption has to be drawn on observation of child. However, the said presumption may not be drawn when the Committee or Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding the person brought before it is a child or not.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Timing of Claim: A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of criminal proceedings, including after final disposal, and delay does not bar it. It may even be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. (!) [1000744520028]
Forum for Application: Claims can be filed before a court or JJ Board. Before a court (not JJ Board), Sections 9(2)-(3) apply; before JJ Board or Committee, Section 94 applies. Section 94(2) may be read with Section 9(2) for evidence when filed before court. (!) (!) (!) [1000744520028]
Procedure Before JJ Board (Section 94): Initial presumption of childhood based on appearance; if reasonable doubt exists, age determination via: (i) school DOB certificate or matriculation certificate; (ii) birth certificate from municipal authority/panchayat; (iii) only if absent, ossification/other medical test (within 15 days). Age recorded is deemed true. Higher proof standard applies before JJ Board when trial is pending in criminal court vs. inquiry under Section 9. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000744520021][1000744520026][1000744520046][1000744520047]
Burden and Presumption: Claimant bears initial burden, but documents under Section 94(2)(a)-(b) or Rule 12(3)(a)(i)-(iii) of 2007 Rules suffice for prima facie satisfaction, raising rebuttable presumption of juvenility. (!) (!) [1000744520028]
Nature of Inquiry vs. Determination: Court inquiry (Section 9) yields prima facie finding; JJ Board determination (Section 94(2)) is declarative based on scrutinized evidence, with finality under Section 94(3). Different proof standards apply. (!) [1000744520028]
Evidence Appreciation: No abstract formula for age; case-specific based on record. Avoid hyper-technical approach favoring accused's evidence; in borderline cases with two views, lean toward juvenility to extend JJ Act benefits, but prevent misuse for serious crimes. (!) (!) (!) [1000744520028]
Documentary Hierarchy and Credibility: Prefer public/official documents (e.g., matriculation certificate under Section 35 Evidence Act) over private ones; consistent documents gain acceptance if authentic. School records assessed per Evidence Act. (!) (!) [1000744520028]
Role of Medical Evidence: Ossification test not sole criterion or conclusive; merely guiding factor if documentary evidence absent. Mechanical reliance on radiological opinion impermissible. (!) [1000744520028][1000744520036]
Application to Facts: Matriculation certificate (DOB 25.09.2004) and verifying letter from education board establish age <16 years on incident date (05.05.2020); no rebuttal evidence or contrary documents overcome presumption. Signatures/discrepancies on private school forms do not discredit public records. [1000744520031][1000744520040][1000744520041][1000744520043][1000744520045]
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; juvenility upheld, accused declared juvenile delinquent for IPC Sections 147/148/149/323/307/302/34. [1000744520048]
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 430 of 2021 whereby the High Court rejected the aforesaid criminal revision filed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive Court), Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2020. The said criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat allowing the Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 116 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’) Police Station at Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and declaring the accused-Nishant Solanki @ Nishu (respondent no. 2 herein) as a juvenile delinquent.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts are that, in an incident that occurred on 05.05.2020 at around 4:00 pm, inter-alia, respondent no. 2-Nishant Solanki @ Nishu (hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishant’) along with other accused are alleged to have attacked upon the appellant and his family causing serious injuries as well as death of appellant’s father Bhopal Singh, who was declared ‘brought dead’ by the doctor on the same day i.e. 05.05.2020 and his uncle Kaluram, who died on 09.05.2020 due to grievous injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid incident.
3. Nishant, through his mother/natural guardian-respondent no. 3 herein, filed an application being Miscellaneous Case No. 16/2020 before the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JJ Board’) Baghpat, praying therein that the respondent no. 2/accused viz. Nishant, be declared as a juvenile delinquent. Evidence was let in on the said application through respondent no. 3 who is the mother and natural guardian of Nishant. On coming to know about the same, the appellant herein entered appearance in the said proceeding through his counsel and filed an application dated 20.07.2020 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking permission of the JJ Board to cross-examine respondent no. 3. The appellant herein was permitted to do so on 22.07.2020, on which date the application was posted for further cross-examination of the mother of Nishant. On the said date, respondent no. 3 was further cross-examined by the appellant.
4. Another witness, Manoj Kumar, Principal, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Higher Secondary School, Shajarpur, Kaidna, District Baghpat, was also examined as DW-2 on 10.08.2020 and subsequently, Surendra Kumar Saini, Principal, Sarvoday Public School, Khindora, District Baghpat, was examined as DW-3.
5. The police also filed a charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the IPC against all the accused including respondent no. 2-Nishant on 22.07.2020.
6. In the said proceedings, an application was filed on 09.09.2020 before the JJ Board for medical test of respondent no. 2 Nishant to ascertain his actual and true age. By order dated 14.09.2020, the said application was dismissed and the matter was ordered to be posted on 23.09.2020 for hearing on the issue of determination of age of the respondent no. 2-Nishant.
7. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application dated 09.09.2020 seeking medical test of respondent no. 2-Nishant, the appellant herein filed a criminal revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat and an application being Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 158/2020 before the High Court praying, inter-alia, for the transfer of proceedings in Miscellaneous Case No. 16/2020 pending before the JJ Board, Baghpat, to some other JJ Board of the State.
8. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the High Court, the JJ Board, Baghpat vide order dated 11.11.2020 allowed the application being Misc. Case No. 16/
(1) Claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after final disposal of case – Delay in raising claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim – ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence, such as school certificates, in determining juvenility, and the need for a careful and conscious approach....
The burden of proof for age determination lies with the claimant, and reliable documentary evidence is crucial. The court's interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, emphasizes the importance....
The court can rely on evidence, including radiological tests, to determine a person's age and may reject a claim of juvenility based on contradictory claims and evidence.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of a person's age, especially in cases involving the Juvenile Justice Act and the POCSO Act, should be based on credible and....
The court emphasized that age determination in juvenile cases must primarily rely on credible documentation like birth certificates and school records, with ossification tests being a last resort in ....
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
