Summary
The Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility on the date of the offence after examining the judicial inquiry and original school records. The High Court had rejected the claim without the statutory inquiry. As the appellant had already undergone six years’ imprisonment, exceeding the three-year maximum under the applicable juvenile law, the Court set aside the High Court judgment affirming conviction and sentence and terminated the proceedings against him.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was a juvenile when the offence was committed.
- Whether the inquiry and school records justified relief despite the earlier rejection of juvenility.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A and 20, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000Applied the age of eighteen at commission of the offence and the statutory inquiry procedure, including the availability of a juvenility claim at any stage. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Rule 12(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007Applied the prescribed documentary hierarchy for age determination and examined the original school material supporting the inquiry. (¶¶ 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Section 15(1)(g), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000The appellant had already served more than the maximum three-year period of special-home detention. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Held
- The High Court had not conducted the inquiry required by Section 7A and Rule 12 before rejecting the juvenility claim. The claim remained examinable in the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 9, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- An inquiry conducted through the Registrar (Judicial), with assistance from the District Judge, was competent. Its report did not automatically displace the High Court finding: the Court itself had to examine and accept the supporting material. (¶ 17)
- Original records of the first school and corroborating subsequent school records established the date of birth as 12 July 1984. The appellant was sixteen years, two months and two days old on the date of the offence; the State had not controverted the records. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Parental affidavits were not admissible evidence of age under Section 7A. The Court nevertheless found independent documentary support for identity and age, including the common father’s name in the records. (¶ 23)
- Having already undergone six years’ imprisonment against the statutory maximum of three years, the appellant need not undergo further custody. The High Court judgment affirming conviction and sentence was set aside and the present proceedings against him terminated. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment affirming conviction and sentence set aside. Proceedings against the appellant terminated and bail bonds discharged.