SC rules birth certificate as preferred method to determine age of accused claiming juvenility.
Supreme Court in a recent judgement (KARAN @ FATIYA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH D.D. 03/03/2023) rejected the argument made by the respondent-state regarding the use of an ossification test to determine the appellant’s age and stated that the state did not raise any objection during the trial court inquiry, and even if an ossification test were to be conducted, it would only provide a broad assessment of the age with a margin of error and the birth certificate from the school or matriculation certificate is the preferred method of determining age.
An appeal from Karan @ Fatiya against a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which upheld his death sentence for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
The appellant claimed juvenility and submitted that he cannot be given the death sentence under the Juvenile Justice Act, as he was a child below 16 years old on the date of the incident.
The Supreme Court ordered the Trial Court to inquire into the appellant’s age, and the report established that he was a child below the age of 16 at the time of the incident.
The State urged the Court to subject the appellant to an ossification test to determine his correct age, but the Court rejected the argument, emphasizing that the birth certificate from the school or matriculation certificate is the preferred method of determining age.
The Supreme Court discussed the status of trial, conviction, and sentence recorded by the trial court and appellate courts once an accused, after conviction at the stage of appeal, is held to be a juvenile/child under the provisions of the 2015 Juvenile Justice Act. The Court stated that the intention of the legislature is to only give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence with respect to the sentence. If the conviction were also to be invalidated, the jurisdiction of the regular Sessions Court would have to be excluded, and a pending trial would have to be deemed null and void.
The Court concluded that the sentence imposed on the appellant must be made ineffective since he was found to have been a child at the time of the offence. Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act allows the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to pass various orders for a child found to be in conflict with the law, but the punishment cannot exceed three years. The appellant is held to be less than 16 years old, and therefore, the maximum punishment that could be awarded is up to three years. The appellant has already undergone more than five years, and his incarceration beyond three years would be illegal. Hence, he would be liable to be released forthwith.
KARAN @ FATIYA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
