Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 1) overturned an accused's juvenile status, after finding that he was not a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the complainant, where both the Trial Court and the High Court had treated Respondent No. 2 (the accused) as a juvenile for a crime committed in 2012, solely on the basis of private school records indicating his year of birth as 1995. These records, the Court noted, were based only on the oral declaration of the accused's father at the time of admission.

Crucially, the Courts below had overlooked more credible public documents, including the Family Register and the Voter List, both of which consistently recorded the year of birth as 1991, making the accused an adult at the time of the offence.

Setting aside the concurrent findings, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah questioned the authenticity of the school records as valid documents for age determination, noting that the same was recorded without any proof of date of birth solely on the accused father's statement to the school. The Court denied accepting the school records, finding it to be not conclusive proof of date of birth.

Interpreting Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which lays down the procedure and hierarchy for age determination, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere existence of school records does not preclude consideration of other reliable documents, especially public records maintained by statutory authorities that indicate a conflicting date of birth.

In this case, the Court found that the Family Register maintained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act recorded the accused's year of birth as 1991. This was corroborated by the Voter ID details and a medical examination report, making him approximately 22 years old at the time of the offence, all of which aligned with each other but contradicted the school records. Finding these public and medical documents more credible, the Court rejected the school-based birth entry and held the accused was not a juvenile.

“From an overall circumspection of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the Rules, the picture which emerges is that on the one hand, there is the certificate backed by the testimony of the Headmaster of the first school (which as indicated supra notes that the recordal was made on the oral say-so of Respondent No.2's father) relating to the date of birth and the three consequentially-made/issued certificates, whereas on the other hand, there exists a statutory document, being a public record and a public document, in Form (A) under Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 disclosing the year of birth of Respondent No.2 as 1991 as also the entry in the Voters' List for the Legislative Assembly of the year 2012 and the Medical Report apropos the age of Respondent No.2 given by the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar, who opined that Respondent No.2 was aged about 22 years on 01.12.2012. As such, the certificate issued by Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon could not have been taken as conclusive proof of date of birth of Respondent No.2, discarding Form (A) under Rule 2 of the Rules under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; the entry in the Voters' List for the Legislative Assembly of the year 2012, and; the Medical Report. On the basis of the latter three documents, it is clear that Respondent No.2 cannot be said to have been a 'juvenile' on the date of the unfortunate incident.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the Court declared the accused to be treated as an adult for the purposes of trial.

“Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the declaration of Respondent No.2 as a 'juvenile' being plainly improper, the Impugned Order as well as the Order dated 19.05.2015 of the Trial Court holding the Respondent No.2 to be a 'juvenile' are hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is held to have been a major as on the date of commission of the alleged offence and liable to be tried as a major for Crime No. 385/2011, Police Station - Kairana.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: SURESH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Ms. Neema, Adv.(argued by) Mr. Rajesh, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR(argued by-R.1) Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Rana, Adv. Mr. Prafulla, Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR(argued by)(R.2) Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Mr. Shashikant Pralhad Chaudhari, Adv.