Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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