Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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