In one of its recent judgements, the Supreme Court has summarised in great detail, the principles relating to the determination of the claim of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.
The judgement has been authored by Justice BV Nagarathna, while he dealt with a plea challenging the order declaring the accused as a juvenile delinquent in a Criminal Case along with Justice DY Chandrachud being the other Bench Member.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The main accused 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 and auncle. The accused via his mother (natural guardian) filed plea before the JJ Board pleading to be declared as a juvenile delinquent. The JJ Board then rejected a plea seeking medical examination of the main accused to ascertain his true age, aggrieved of which the appellant filed a CRP before the District and Sessions Judge. He also sought and transfer of case to some other JJ Borad before the Allahabad High Court and filed a Transfer Application accordingly. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the application before the HC, the said JJ Board, declared the accused as a juvenile delinquent.
In response, the appellant filed an appeal with the District and Sessions Judge under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 assailing the above order which was dismissed by the said Court. He then filed a CRP before the Allahabad High Court challenging the dismissal which too was eventually set aside by the Higher Court.
Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present SLP before the Apex Court.
Supreme Court Observation:
The Counsel for the Appellant contended that the charges against the accused are of grave nature (Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the IPC) and that the JJ Board and High Court erred in approving his application for declaration as juvenile delinquent.
He also contended that there are contradictions in the evidence and that JJ Board has not appreciated the legislative intent behind section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 by declaring that matriculation certificate is a conclusive document for determining the age of the juvenile irrespective of other material discrepancies in the oral testimony of the witnesses or other documents being produced. He placed reliance on SC Judgement in Parag Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, 2012 Latest Caselaw 584 SC, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., 2015 Latest Caselaw 362 SC
It was further contended that in the aforesaid cases, the claim of juvenility of the accused was rejected due to discrepancies in the evidence, notwithstanding the fact that as per the matriculation certificate issued to the accused therein, they were juveniles. In other words, the age shown in the matriculation certificate cannot be accepted on its face value if there is other evidence which contradicts the same.
The Counsel of Accused on the other hand denied all the claims and sided with the JJ Borad and High Court's decision
The Bench upon hearing both the Counsels, went into detail to examine the JJ Act; its emergence and amendments that shaped it in its present form. The The JJ Act, 2015 is a sequel to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which has since been repealed, the Court said at the outset of the observation.
Key take-aways of the detailed analysis and principles so summarised are below:
i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after a final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. It can also be raised for the first time before this Court.
(ii) An application claiming juvenility could be made either before the Court or the JJ Board.
- When an application claiming juvenility is made under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a Court, then the procedure contemplated under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the said provision if the JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence and the age recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age of that person. Hence the degree of proof required in such a proceeding before the JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial is before the concerned criminal court, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of the offence is pending (vide section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015). 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
(iii) When a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised.
(iv) The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side.
(v) The procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the 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 the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the 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.
(vi) It is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case.
(vii) The Court has observed that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile.
(viii) If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
(ix) When the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents.
(x) Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., Section 35 and other provisions.
(xi) Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the 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 the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.
The Court thus accordingly dismissed the challange of the appellant.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws
