Supreme Court Addresses Juvenile Status in a Murder Case: Pawan Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 21 November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1012
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Can a person, accused of a heinous crime committed as a minor, be denied the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case where the accused claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense. This case highlights the importance of correctly determining a person’s age in criminal proceedings and the procedures to be followed under the Juvenile Justice Act. The judgment was authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring.

Case Background

On December 1, 1995, a dispute over water irrigation escalated into a violent assault. The father and brother of the complainant, Guru Prasad Mishra, were irrigating their land when water flowed into an adjacent field owned by Gaya Prasad Mishra. Gaya Prasad Mishra, along with his sons, Gulab Chandra and Pawan Kumar (the appellant), and one Babadeen, arrived at the scene armed with “lathis” (sticks). They assaulted Guru Prasad Mishra’s father and brother. Upon hearing the commotion, Guru Prasad Mishra and other villagers intervened, and they too were attacked. This incident resulted in severe injuries and the death of Ganga Prasad, the complainant’s brother. An FIR was filed at Subeha Police Station in Barabanki District, initially under Sections 307, 504, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After Ganga Prasad’s death, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added to the charges.

Pawan Kumar, the appellant, was among the aggressors and was armed with a “lathi”. While the crime was heinous, the Supreme Court noted that it was not premeditated or a cold-blooded murder. During the trial, Pawan Kumar claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offense. This claim led to a series of investigations and legal proceedings to determine his age.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Pawan Kumar, raised the claim of being a juvenile at the time of the offense during his trial. The Trial Court, after an inquiry, rejected his plea, concluding that he was not a juvenile. This decision was based on the Scholar Register of National Inter College, Barabanki, which recorded his date of birth as 05.07.1980, but the court noted that this entry was based on a transfer certificate from Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, which was not on record. The Gram Panchayat Officer produced the Family Register, which recorded his birth year as 1975, and a bone ossification test estimated his age at approximately 19 years. Consequently, the Trial Court concluded that the benefit of juvenility could not be extended to him.

Pawan Kumar then filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court against the Trial Court’s order, which was also dismissed. The High Court did not find it appropriate to interfere with the trial at such a late stage. The Trial Court then convicted Pawan Kumar and other accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, Pawan Kumar filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 391 of the CrPC to place additional evidence on record regarding his juvenility. This included the Transfer Certificate from High School, Kamela, which was the basis for the Scholar Register entry. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and rejecting the plea of juvenility. The High Court noted that the juvenility claim had been dealt with by the Trial Court after examining witnesses and evidence.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, directed the Trial Court to submit a fresh report on the plea of juvenility, considering the additional evidence. The Trial Court initially maintained that the appellant was not a juvenile, but after further review, the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, in a report dated 28.09.2022, accepted the appellant’s claim of being a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime.

Legal Framework

The determination of a juvenile’s age is based on the date of the alleged commission of the crime. At the time of the incident on December 1, 1995, the relevant law was the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Section 2(h) of this Act defined a “juvenile” as:

“(h) “juvenile” means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years”

For the appellant, a boy, the age of juvenility was 16 years. Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, came into force on April 1, 2000, repealing the 1986 Act. The 2000 Act introduced significant changes, including the definition of a “juvenile” in Section 2(k):

“(k) “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age”

The 2000 Act raised the age of juvenility to 18 years and removed the distinction between boys and girls. Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act, as amended in 2006, defined “juvenile in conflict with law” as:

“(l) “juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence”

Section 7A was introduced in the 2000 Act, which outlines the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. It mandates that the court must make an inquiry, take necessary evidence, and record a finding on whether the person is a juvenile. The proviso to Section 7A states that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case, and must be determined under the provisions of the Act.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, also provide a detailed procedure for determining a juvenile’s age. Rule 12 specifies that the court or the Board must determine the age within thirty days of the application. It also lists the order of preference for documents to be considered: (i) matriculation or equivalent certificates, (ii) date of birth certificate from the first school attended, (iii) birth certificate from a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat. Only in the absence of these documents can a medical opinion be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, repealed the 2000 Act, but Section 25 of the 2015 Act states that all proceedings pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of the 2015 Act shall continue as if the 2015 Act had not been enacted. This means that the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules apply to this case, as the proceedings were pending before the High Court when the 2015 Act came into force.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the plea of juvenility should be considered first, as the appellant was indeed a juvenile at the time of the incident, and his plea had not been considered in the true letter and spirit of the applicable law.
• The appellant relied on the Scholar Register of the National Inter College, Barabanki, which recorded his date of birth as 05.07.1980. This would mean he was 15 years, 6 months, and 26 days old on the date of the offense (01.12.1995).
• The appellant also produced a Transfer Certificate from High School, Kamela, which was the basis for the entry in the Scholar Register of National Inter College, Barabanki.
• The appellant contended that the Trial Court had not accepted the veracity of the Scholar Register because the Transfer Certificate was not on record. However, when the appellant placed the Transfer Certificate on record through an application under Section 391 of the CrPC, it should have been considered.
• The appellant emphasized that the Additional Sessions Judge, in his latest report, had found the date of birth to be 05.07.1980, based on the school records.
• The appellant highlighted that the medical opinion based on the bone ossification test is not entirely accurate and that the school certificates should be given more importance.
• The appellant argued that the benefit of juvenility should be extended in borderline cases, as per the established legal principle.

State’s Submissions:

• The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the Trial Court and the High Court had already considered the plea of juvenility and rejected it.
• The State pointed out the contradictions in the evidence, such as the Family Register of the Gram Panchayat, which recorded the appellant’s birth year as 1975, and the bone ossification test, which estimated his age at approximately 19 years.
• The State argued that the school certificates were not conclusive evidence and that the other evidence should also be considered.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant, Pawan Kumar, was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the crime, i.e., December 1, 1995.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2005) 3 SCC 551 – Supreme Court of India. This case established that the reckoning date for determining the age of a juvenile is the date of the offense and that the 2000 Act applies to pending proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act.
• Satya Deo alias Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 555 – Supreme Court of India. This case explained the impact of Section 25 of the 2015 Act, stating that “all proceedings” include trials, revisions, and appeals.
• Hariram v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2009) 13 SCC 211 – Supreme Court of India. This case examined the application of the 2007 Rules in determining the age of a juvenile.
• Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 13 SCC 7512 – Supreme Court of India. This case emphasized the importance of the school leaving certificate of the first school attended for age determination.
• Vinod Katara v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1204 – Supreme Court of India. This case highlighted that the bone ossification test is not an exact science and does not provide the precise age of a person.
• Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 – Supreme Court of India. This case held that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted while appreciating evidence of juvenility, and in borderline cases, the court should lean in favor of holding the accused to be a juvenile.
• Mukarrab and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 2 SCC 210 – Supreme Court of India. This case reiterated the liberal view in extending the benefit of juvenility.
• Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 7503 – Supreme Court of India. This case reiterated the liberal view in extending the benefit of juvenility.
• Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 602 – Supreme Court of India. This case reiterated the liberal view in extending the benefit of juvenility.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(h), Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Defined “juvenile” as a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years.
• Section 2(k), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Defined “juvenile” as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age.
• Section 2(l), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended in 2006) – Defined “juvenile in conflict with law” as a juvenile who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of the offense.
• Section 7A, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Outlined the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court.
• Section 25, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Specified that pending cases would continue under the previous act.
• Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Provided a detailed procedure for determining the age of a juvenile.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Defines common intention.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Defines punishment for murder.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Defines punishment for attempt to murder.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another [CITATION]: The court followed this authority, which clarified that the date of the offense is the reckoning date for determining juvenility and that the 2000 Act applies to pending proceedings.
• Satya Deo alias Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: The court followed this authority, which explained the impact of Section 25 of the 2015 Act, clarifying that pending proceedings include appeals.
• Hariram v. State of Rajasthan and Another [CITATION]: The court followed this authority, which examined the application of the 2007 Rules in determining the age of a juvenile.
• Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [CITATION]: The court followed this authority, emphasizing the importance of the school leaving certificate from the first school attended.
• Vinod Katara v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The court followed this authority, which highlighted the limitations of the bone ossification test.
• Arnit Das v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The court followed this authority, which established that a liberal approach should be taken in cases of juvenility, especially in borderline situations.
• Mukarrab and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION], Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION], and Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: The court followed these authorities, which reiterated the liberal view in extending the benefit of juvenility.

The Supreme Court, after considering the reports and evidence, accepted the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, dated 28.09.2022, which determined the appellant’s date of birth as 05.07.1980. This meant that the appellant was 15 years, 4 months, and 26 days old at the time of the offense on 01.12.1995. The court emphasized that the school certificates were consistent in recording this date of birth.

The court also noted that even if there were conflicting aspects regarding the appellant’s age, the benefit of Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules should have been given. This rule states that if an exact assessment of age cannot be done, the court may give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering their age on the lower side within a margin of one year. The court observed that the bone ossification test was not entirely accurate and did not provide a precise age.

The court reiterated the principle that in cases of juvenility, a liberal approach should be adopted, and if two views are possible, the court should lean in favor of holding the accused to be a juvenile, especially in borderline cases. The Supreme Court sustained the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but quashed all sentences awarded to him, as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile under Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The court ordered the appellant’s immediate release, as he had already undergone more than the maximum period of detention for a juvenile.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Consistency of School Records: The court placed significant emphasis on the consistency of the school records, particularly the date of birth (05.07.1980) recorded in the Primary School, High School, and National Inter College.
• Application of Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules: The court noted that even if there were some conflicting aspects as to the age of the appellant, the benefit of the doubt should have been given, as per this rule.
• Limitations of Bone Ossification Test: The court recognized that the bone ossification test is not an exact science and does not provide a precise age.
• Liberal Approach in Juvenility Cases: The court reiterated the principle that a liberal approach should be adopted in cases of juvenility, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused in borderline cases.
• Focus on the Welfare of the Juvenile: The court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act is designed to protect children and juveniles in conflict with the law.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Final Order

The Supreme Court made the following final order:

1. The appellant, Pawan Kumar, is declared to be a juvenile on the date of the commission of the crime, i.e., December 1, 1995.
2. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is sustained.
3. All sentences awarded to the appellant are quashed.
4. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, as he has already undergone more than the maximum period of detention for a juvenile.

Flowchart of the Process