Summary
An accused challenged the rejection of his juvenility claim. The Court found the school record unreliable, the birth certificate procured after the claim was filed, and the ossification estimate insufficiently conclusive. A statutorily maintained family register was relevant evidence, though not itself the birth certificate specified in the age-determination rules. The Court upheld the High Court’s rejection of juvenility and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the documentary and medical materials established juvenility at the time of the alleged offence.
- Whether a statutory family register could be considered in determining age.
Provisions considered
- Rule 12(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007The prescribed hierarchy did not compel acceptance of unreliable documents or a mechanical reliance on the medical estimate. A family register was not the specified birth certificate. (¶¶ 4, 6-22, 37-39)
- Section 35, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Entries made in the statutory family register in the regular discharge of official duties were relevant, with weight depending on the facts. (¶¶ 23-25, 32-36)
- Rules 2-7, U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970The statutory preparation, updating and custody duties supported relevance of the register, without making its age entry universally conclusive. (¶¶ 23-25, 35-36)
Held
- The birth was registered long after the event and after the juvenility application. The school records also exhibited serious defects, including a loose admission sheet and a certificate issued from the school’s former location. The Court accepted their rejection as unreliable on these facts. (¶ 8-14)
- Ossification is a useful but nonconclusive guide, affected by individual variation. The medical witness accepted that the same bone fusion could occur at substantially different adult ages; the estimate did not establish that this appellant was under eighteen on the incident date. (¶ 15-22)
- A family register maintained under statutory duties is relevant under Section 35. Its evidentiary weight must be evaluated case by case; the broad proposition that it is altogether irrelevant to age was disapproved. It is nevertheless distinct from the birth certificate listed in Rule 12(3). (¶¶ 23-25, 32-37)
- Beneficial construction of juvenile legislation did not require accepting dubious or untruthful supporting material. The High Court’s rejection of the claim was a legally permissible view; the appeal was dismissed. (¶ 38-39)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Rejection of the juvenility claim and the High Court’s direction that the appellant face trial as an adult remained undisturbed.