Supreme Court Holds Accused Was Major, Sets Aside Juvenility Finding and Directs Trial as Adult

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal challenging orders of the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court that had declared the accused to be a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The appeal arose from a homicide case in which the appellant contested the juvenile status of the accused and sought that he be tried as an adult.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders that had held the accused to be a juvenile, and held that he was a major at the time of the alleged offence. The Court rejected reliance on the school transfer certificate issued by the first school attended because that entry was made on an oral representation by the accused’s father and was not corroborated by reliable public records. The Court noted that where “there exists a statutory document, being a public record and a public document... disclosing the year of birth” and a medical report indicating an older age, the school record could not be treated as conclusive. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also reiterated a cited principle that “the accused cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory protection afforded to him by attempting to prove himself as a minor when the documentary evidence to prove his minority gives rise to a reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority.”

Background The dispute arose from an incident on 31.08.2011 in which the deceased, Rajesh Singh, was allegedly taken into a house and shot with a country-made pistol. The appellant lodged an FIR for offences including murder. The accused (respondent no.2) claimed juvenility, producing school transfer certificates that recorded his date of birth as 18.04.1995, which would have made him 16 years old at the time of the offence. The Trial Court accepted the school records and held him to be a juvenile; the High Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed that finding.

The State and the appellant challenged the juvenility finding before the Supreme Court, relying on a Family Register maintained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act showing year of birth as 1991, an entry in the 2012 Voters’ List indicating an older age, and a Medical Board report dated 01.12.2012 which opined an age of about 22 years. The appellant invoked Section 35 of the Evidence Act to emphasise the relevance of public records. The accused relied on Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 which prescribed a sequence for age-determination evidence — matriculation certificate, date of birth certificate from the first school attended, birth certificate from municipal/panchayat authority, and only thereafter medical opinion.

The Supreme Court analysed the statutory scheme and evidence, observed that the first school’s record was not a public document and that its date-of-birth entry rested on an oral representation by the father without documentary support, and found that the statutory Form (A) entry, the Voters’ List entry and the medical opinion carried greater weight. The Court applied the ratio in Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan that courts must guard against misuse of juvenile protection in heinous offences and must give due weight to reliable documentary and medical evidence where school records are “shaky.” The Court set aside the Trial Court and High Court orders that had declared the accused a juvenile, held him to have been a major at the time of the offence, and directed that the trial proceed as a trial of an adult. The Court directed that the Trial Court expedite the trial and conclude it by the end of July 2026, set aside the juvenile release order and directed the accused to appear before the Trial Court within three weeks to seek bail; failure to appear would permit the State to take coercive measures. The Court clarified that if convicted, the accused would be entitled to set-off for the three years already undergone under the juvenile regime.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.347 OF 2018 Case Title: SURESH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment excerpt] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment excerpt]