Supreme Court directs High Court to Reconsider Juvenile Status in Murder Case: Gaurav Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 123
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a court dismiss an appeal based on the appellant’s withdrawal of an application, particularly when the issue of juvenility is raised? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case where the appellant’s age at the time of the offense was disputed. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court should have considered the appellant’s claim of being a juvenile, despite the withdrawal of his applications for additional evidence. This judgment emphasizes the importance of proper age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on the intervening night of 23rd/24th May 2000, where one Sher Singh was fatally injured. An FIR was registered against the appellant, Gaurav Kumar, and others under Sections 323, 506, 148, 149, 170, 171, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicted Gaurav Kumar and another accused under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment on 14.11.2002.

Gaurav Kumar appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, arguing that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident. The High Court directed the Sessions Judge to inquire into Gaurav Kumar’s age. The Sessions Judge, after conducting an inquiry, concluded that Gaurav Kumar was above 18 years of age at the time of the incident, based on a birth certificate from the Registrar (Birth & Death), Haansi, which recorded his date of birth as 17.08.1981. The appellant then filed applications in the High Court to introduce additional evidence, including school certificates indicating his date of birth as 17.08.1982, which were later withdrawn.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, raising the issue of his juvenility at the time of the offense. The High Court directed the Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry into the appellant’s age. The Sessions Judge submitted a report stating the appellant was not a juvenile. The appellant filed applications in the High Court to submit additional evidence, which were later withdrawn. The High Court, noting the Sessions Judge’s report and the withdrawal of applications, dismissed the applications. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal dispute revolves around the determination of the appellant’s age at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 and 2007. The Court noted that the incident occurred in 2000, and the inquiry by the Sessions Judge was conducted in 2003, making the 2001 Rules applicable, not the 2007 Rules. Rule 22(5) of the 2001 Rules specifies the procedure for age determination, prioritizing a birth certificate from a corporation or municipal authority, a date of birth certificate from the school first attended, or matriculation certificates. In the absence of these, a medical opinion is sought. The 2007 Rules, specifically Rule 12(3), which were relied upon by the appellant, were not applicable.

Rule 22(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 states:
“In every case concerning a juvenile or a child, the Board shall either obtain, – (i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; (ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and (iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age; and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the issue of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after withdrawing applications for additional evidence in the High Court.
• The appellant contended that the school certificate from Sant Kabir School, Hisar, showing his date of birth as 17.08.1982, should have been given preference over the birth certificate from the Registrar (Birth & Death), Haansi, which recorded his date of birth as 17.08.1981.
• The appellant relied on Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which prioritizes the date of birth certificate from the school first attended over a birth certificate from a corporation or municipal authority.
• The appellant cited the judgments in Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2011(13) SCC 751] and Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [2012(10) SCC 489], arguing that school certificates should be preferred over medical reports in determining juvenility.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the District & Sessions Judge had conducted a thorough inquiry and correctly concluded that the appellant was not a juvenile at the time of the offense.
• The State contended that the Sessions Judge rightly relied on the birth certificate issued by the Registrar (Birth & Death).
• The State submitted that the appellant, having withdrawn his applications for filing additional evidence in the High Court, had virtually accepted the Sessions Judge’s report and could not challenge it in the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list, but the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant as withdrawn, without considering the issue of juvenility on merits, especially when the appellant had submitted additional evidence to support his claim of being a juvenile.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2011(13) SCC 751]* to highlight the preference for school certificates over medical reports, but clarified that the 2001 Rules were applicable in this case.
• The Court discussed Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [2012(10) SCC 489]* to elaborate on the importance of school certificates in determining age, but also noted the inapplicability of the 2007 Rules.
• The Court distinguished the applicability of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, stating that the 2001 Rules were relevant.
• The Court applied Rule 22(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, which specifies the procedure for age determination applicable in the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the issue of juvenility should be thoroughly examined, regardless of procedural technicalities. The Court was concerned that the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s applications without a proper consideration of the evidence related to his age. The Court emphasized that the determination of juvenility has significant implications for the accused and should not be overlooked. The Court also noted that the correct rules, i.e., the 2001 Rules, had not been applied by the High Court.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal considerations, focusing on the proper application of the Juvenile Justice Rules and the importance of ensuring that claims of juvenility are thoroughly examined. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal framework and the correct procedure for determining age were the dominant factors.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the High Court should not have dismissed the applications based on the withdrawal alone. The issue of juvenility is a crucial one and should have been considered on merits. The Court emphasized that the correct rules, i.e., the 2001 Rules, should be applied in determining the appellant’s age. The court did not delve into the merits of the evidence but directed the High Court to do so.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The decision was unanimous, with no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The issue of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
• The High Court should have considered the issue on merits, despite the withdrawal of the applications.
• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, were applicable in this case, not the 2007 Rules.
• The High Court should re-examine the evidence on record and the report of the Sessions Judge.

“Even though applicant-appellant has withdrawn his application filed in the High Court for placing certain additional evidence to question the report submitted by District and Sessions Judge, we proceed to examine the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant on merits.”

“We are of the view that the relevant Rules which were required to be looked into are the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001.”

“The interest of justice be served by setting aside the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and remit the question of juvenility to the High Court for consideration.”

Key Takeaways

• The issue of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and courts must consider it on merits, even if applications for additional evidence are withdrawn.
• The correct rules applicable for determining juvenility should be applied based on the date of the offense and the inquiry, not the date of the hearing.
• High Courts should not dismiss cases involving juvenility claims based on procedural technicalities but should examine the evidence on record.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of proper age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act and emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of evidence related to juvenility.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the question of the appellant’s juvenility. The High Court was instructed to consider all relevant materials on record, including the documents submitted by the appellant and the report of the Sessions Judge. The High Court was directed to decide the issue of juvenility before proceeding to decide the appeal on merit.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the issue of juvenility must be considered on merits by the courts, regardless of procedural technicalities such as the withdrawal of applications for additional evidence. The judgment clarifies that the applicable rules for determining juvenility are those in force at the time of the offense and the initial inquiry, not necessarily at the time of the hearing. This judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that claims of juvenility are thoroughly examined and that the correct procedures are followed.

Conclusion

In Gaurav Kumar @ Monu vs. The State of Haryana (2019), the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had dismissed the appellant’s applications for additional evidence regarding his juvenility. The Supreme Court held that the issue of juvenility should be considered on merits, irrespective of the withdrawal of applications. The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, were applicable in this case, not the 2007 Rules. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the juvenility issue before deciding the appeal on merit. This judgment underscores the importance of proper age determination procedures and the need for a thorough examination of evidence related to juvenility.