Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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