"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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.

 

Similar News