Summary
One of the accused in the 2018 Kathua abduction, gang rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl claimed to be a juvenile. He relied on a municipal birth entry of 23.10.2002, made in 2004 on his father's application. The CJM and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court accepted the claim. The Supreme Court reversed them. The school records gave 23.10.2003, the hospital had no record of his birth, and the 2004 order listed sibling births three months apart. Faced with such contradictions, the court had to fall back on the five-member Medical Board, which put his age at 19 to 23. The Court held that 'may' in Rule 74(3)(iii) of the 2014 Rules means 'shall'. He is to be tried as an adult.
Issues
- Whether an accused claiming juvenility could be held a juvenile on a municipal birth certificate where the documents on his date of birth contradicted one another and a Medical Board assessed him as an adult.
Provisions considered
- Rule 74(3), J&K Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014Where the municipal birth certificate and matriculation certificate are absent or contradictory, the authority must refer the matter to a duly constituted Medical Board; 'may' in clause (iii) is read as 'shall' given the object of the rule. (¶¶ 28, 38, 39)
- Sections 8 and 48, J&K Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013Whenever juvenility is claimed, the court must inquire and take necessary evidence before recording a finding on age. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44)
Held
- The documents were contradictory: the municipal entry made in 2004 on the father's application recorded 23.10.2002 and listed sibling births three months apart, the school records gave 23.10.2003, and the Block Medical Officer reported no delivery at the hospital on the claimed date; the courts below erred in ignoring this. (¶¶ 25, 27, 38, 73)
- Where documentary evidence of age does not inspire confidence, the expert opinion of the Medical Board, constituted on the High Court's own direction, cannot be ignored; its unanimous finding of 19 to 23 years shows the respondent was not a juvenile (Ramdeo Chauhan, Om Prakash, Parag Bhati). (¶¶ 45, 72, 74, 76, 77)
- The benefit of the benevolent juvenile justice law extends to an accused of a grave, well-planned offence only on at least prima facie evidence inspiring confidence; a casual approach to such a claim cannot be permitted. (¶¶ 68, 72)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 1928 of 2022 allowed; the CJM Kathua's order dated 27.03.2018 and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court order dated 11.10.2019 in CRR No. 27 of 2018 set aside; the respondent held not a juvenile and to be tried as the other co-accused were, guilt or innocence to be decided only on the trial evidence.