The Supreme Court discussed the criteria for determining the age of juveniles involved in criminal cases. The verdict came during the appeal of a convict involved in a 1995 assault and murder case. The Court, recognizing the challenges in accurately determining the appellant's age and the conflicting medical reports, invoked the provision outlined in sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 12 in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Rules’). Accordingly, the Court accorded the appellant the benefit of an additional year in the present case.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case dealt with a 1995 incident in Barabanki District, where a dispute over water irrigation between two families led to an assault and murder. Pawan Kumar, alongside his father Gaya Prasad Mishra and another relative, faced accusations of assaulting the father and brother of the complainant, resulting in the unfortunate demise of Ganga Prasad. An FIR was filed under Sections 307, 504, and 323 IPC, with Section 302 added subsequently due to the fatal outcome.
The focal point of the case rested upon the age of the appellant at the time of the incident. The complexity arose from conflicting reports, with the appellant's year and date of birth ranging from 1975 to 1980. This discrepancy became a central point of discussion throughout the legal proceedings.
Contentions of the Parties:
The prosecution, representing the State's interests, argued vehemently in favour of the initial convictions and sentences handed down by the Trial Court and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Their stance was rooted in the belief that the appellant, despite potential inconsistencies in age determination, played an equal role in the assault and murder, warranting the imposed sentences.
On the other hand, the defence, advocating for the appellant, contested the validity of the convictions and sentences. Central to their argument was the nuanced interpretation of age determination rules under the Juvenile Justice Act. They underscored the inherent uncertainties in assessing the exact age of the appellant at the time of the crime and urged the Court to consider the flexibility provided by Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules, which allows for a one-year benefit to the juvenile in cases where an exact assessment of age is not feasible.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court highlighted Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules, stating that if an exact assessment of age is not possible, the Court may, if considered necessary, give the benefit of one year to the child or juvenile. The Court emphasised the importance of the school leaving certificate as a valid proof of evidence, sidelining the Panchayat Register. It also questioned the reliability of the bone ossification test, noting its imprecise nature and the potential for inaccuracies. The Court acknowledged the limitations of this test, stating that it does not provide a precise age but offers, at best, an approximation.
Quoting the case of Vinod Katara vs. State of U.P., the Court noted that the ossification test is not an exact science and cannot provide the exact age of the person. It highlighted the individual characteristics, such as the growth rate of bones and skeletal structures, which can significantly affect the accuracy of the method. The Court reinforced the idea that the radiological examination, even though a part of the ossification test, leaves a margin of two years on either side of the age range prescribed by the test.
Further, the Court emphasized the principle that, in cases where conflicting reports and uncertainties exist, the benefit of the doubt should lean in favor of the accused being considered a juvenile. This liberal approach was in line with established legal principles that caution against a hyper-technical evaluation, especially in borderline cases where two views may be possible on the same evidence. Citing the Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar case, the Court held that a hypertechnical approach should be avoided when appreciating the evidence presented in support of the plea that the accused was a juvenile. The Court, in essence, advocated for a more flexible and nuanced interpretation of the evidence, considering the complexities and uncertainties inherent in age determination processes.
Decision of the Court:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the report of the Additional Sessions Judge declaring the appellant a juvenile at the time of the crime. While sustaining the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the Court quashed all sentences in line with Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which prohibits the imposition of such sentences on juveniles.
Case Name: Pawan Kumar vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3548 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 877 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. Rishad Murtaza, Adv. and Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondents: Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR and Ms. Tania Sharma, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
