Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

Estimation of Age Based on X-ray Examination Becomes Uncertain After 25 Years: Supreme Court, Denying Juvenility Claim in 1982 Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement delivered on 5th March, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition challenging a murder conviction based on the claim of juvenility at the time of the incident. The Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the petitioner, Vinod Katara, was not a juvenile when the crime was committed in 1982.

The central legal issue revolved around determining the age of the petitioner, Vinod Katara, at the time of a murder committed on 10th September, 1982. Katara, convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, claimed he was around 15 years old at the time of the incident, seeking relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Katara's age determination was pivotal in the case. A medical report and family register entries were scrutinized to ascertain his age. A Medical Board conducted an X-ray examination in 2021 and estimated Katara to be about 56 years old at that time, implying he was around 15 in 1982. However, the Sessions Court, upon examination, found Katara's date of birth to be 2nd July, 1960, making him a major at the time of the incident.

The Supreme Court, after a detailed inquiry and assessment, found discrepancies in Katara's claim. The school records were deemed more reliable for age determination under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, overruling the medical opinion and the family register. The Court observed that "the estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years," thereby questioning the reliability of the medical report presented by Katara.

The apex court found no merit in Katara's petition based on the thorough inquiry and evidence presented. It upheld the decision that Katara was not a juvenile at the time of the incident and dismissed the writ petition.

Date of Decision: 5th March, 2024.

Vinod Katara Vs. State of U.P.

 

Latest Legal News