Summary
The petitioner, serving life imprisonment for a murder committed in September 1982, had his conviction affirmed by the High Court in 2016, and his special leave petition was dismissed that year. He then claimed under Article 32 that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence. He relied on a Medical Board report estimating his age at around 15 in 1982, and on a U.P. Family Register entry recording his birth in 1968. The Supreme Court held that under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 juvenility may be claimed in any court at any stage, even after final disposal. The Family Register is relevant but not equivalent to a matriculation certificate. An ossification test on a person over 50 is not conclusive. The Court directed the Sessions Court, Agra to inquire, verify the register and arrange fresh medical age determination, and to report within a month.
Issues
- Whether a convict whose conviction has become final, including after dismissal of his SLP, can raise a claim of juvenility for the first time
- What evidence suffices to direct an inquiry into juvenility, and the evidentiary value of a U.P. Family Register entry and an ossification test conducted when the convict was over 50
Provisions considered
- Sections 7A, 15, 16 and 20, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000A claim of juvenility may be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal. If upheld, the sentence is deemed to have no effect and the matter goes to the Board, with three years the maximum detention. Section 20 applies the Act to cases pending when it came into force. (¶¶ 20, 25, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- Rule 12(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007Matriculation certificates, then the school's birth certificate, then a municipal or panchayat birth certificate are to be preferred in that order. Medical opinion is sought only in their absence, with the benefit of a one-year margin. (¶¶ 31, 32, 46, 47)
- Rules 2 to 7, U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970The Family Register is maintained under statutory rules and is relevant, but its weight depends on the facts (Manoj v. State of Haryana). It is not equivalent to a matriculation certificate, and its authenticity was to be examined. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 48)
Held
- Under Section 7A of the 2000 Act, applicable because the petitioner's appeal was pending when it came into force, the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after dismissal of the SLP. The Court remains obliged to consider it, and the later replacement of the 2000 Act by the 2015 Act makes no difference. (¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 43)
- Following Abuzar Hossain, delay is no ground to reject a juvenility claim, but the claimant must produce material prima facie justifying an inquiry. A hyper-technical approach must be avoided, and in borderline cases the court should lean towards juvenility, on a standard of probability. (¶¶ 37, 38, 45, 60)
- An ossification test is advisory and not conclusive. It carries a margin of about two years either way and is of little help after the age of 30. The Medical Board report on the petitioner, examined when he was over 50, did not inspire much confidence (Ram Vijay Singh, Mukarrab). (¶¶ 55, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63)
- In the larger interest of justice, the Sessions Court, Agra was directed to examine the juvenility claim and the authenticity of the non-contemporaneous Family Register, which may make the medical report unnecessary if found genuine. It was also to have the petitioner medically examined by a team of three doctors and report within one month. (¶¶ 48, 64, 65, 66)
Result
Directions issued. The Sessions Court, Agra was to inquire into the petitioner's juvenility, verify the Family Register and arrange fresh medical age determination, reporting within one month, with the matter to be listed thereafter for final orders.