Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Supreme Court: School Certificate of Date of Birth Prevails in Determining Juvenility, Death Sentence Invalidated

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the certificate of date of birth issued by school authorities based on the admission register holds pre-eminence in determining the juvenility of an accused or convict. The Court emphasized that the date of school certificate by the school must be accepted for determining the age of the accused or convict claiming to be a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offense. The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

The Court stated, "Though the heading of the said section reads 'presumption and determination of age', the section itself does not specify that the date of birth certificate by the school would only lead to presumption. The way the provision thereof has been framed, the documents referred to in the first two sub-clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the 2015 Act, if established in the order of priority, then the dates reflected therein have to be accepted to determine the age of the accused or convict claiming to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offense."

The judgment further clarified that the lack of inspiration from the age-determining authority must come for a cogent reason and should not be based on the authority's own perception of the juvenile's age. The Court emphasized that the documents not specified in the statute cannot be considered for the process of age determination.

In this particular case, the applicant had produced a date of birth certificate issued by the Rajkiya Adarsh Uccha Madhaymik Vidyalaya, Jalabsar, which recorded his birth date in the year 1986. The Court noted that the state failed to provide any compelling contradictory evidence to challenge the reliability of the certificate. As a result, the Court accepted the certificate as evidence of the applicant's age, concluding that he was a child/juvenile at the time of the offense. The Court invalidated the death sentence imposed on the applicant, stating that he had already served more than 28 years of incarceration, exceeding the maximum punishment under the law.

The judgment also discussed the approach to be taken in determining juvenility. The Court stressed that a casual or cavalier approach should not be adopted, but the gravity of the offense should not be the sole reason to deny the benefits granted under the 2015 Act. The legislature has provided for exceptions in cases involving heinous crimes, as specified in Section 15 of the 2015 Act.

The decision holds significant implications for cases involving the determination of juvenility and underscores the importance of relying on reliable documents, particularly school certificates of date of birth, in such inquiries.

Date of Decision: 27th March, 2023

NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/27-Mar-2023-Narayan-Vs-State.pdf"]           

Latest Legal News