Supreme Court directs Sessions Court to verify juvenility claim of convict: Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (12 September 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J.B. Pardiwala

Can a person convicted of a crime claim they were a juvenile at the time of the offense, even after their appeals have been exhausted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a convict claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, decades after the incident. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that the rights of juveniles are protected, even in cases where the claim of juvenility is raised belatedly.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examines the permissibility of raising a plea of juvenility at a belated stage and the procedure to be followed for determining the age of the accused. The bench comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J.B. Pardiwala, with the majority opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The petitioner, Vinod Katara, was convicted of murder along with other co-accused and sentenced to life imprisonment by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 06 January 1986. The case arose from a crime registered in 1982. Katara and the co-accused appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their appeal on 04 March 2016, upholding the trial court’s decision. A Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 16 August 2016. It is important to note that, until this point, the petitioner had not raised the issue of his juvenility at the time of the crime.

While serving his sentence, Katara underwent a medical examination by a Medical Board, constituted as per the directions of the Allahabad High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. The Medical Board’s report, dated 10 December 2021, indicated that Katara could have been around 15 years old on the date of the offense (10 September 1982). Further, a Family Register dated 02 March 2021, showed his year of birth as 1968, suggesting he was about 14 years old at the time of the offense. Based on these findings, Katara approached the Supreme Court claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and should have been dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• The Children Act, 1960: This Act was in force at the time of the offense and defined a child as a person who had not attained the age of 16 years in the case of a boy.
• The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: This Act came into force on 01 December 1986, and was not in force at the time of the offense or the conviction.
• Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This pertains to the offense of murder with common intention, for which the petitioner was convicted.
• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (the 2000 Act): This Act raised the age of juvenility to 18 years and included provisions for pending cases.
  • Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act: Defines a juvenile in conflict with the law as someone who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of the offense.
  • Section 7A of the 2000 Act: Allows a claim of juvenility to be raised before any court at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case. It mandates an inquiry to determine the age of the person.
  • Section 20 of the 2000 Act: Deals with special provisions for pending cases, stating that all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court shall be continued in that court as if the 2000 Act had not been passed.
  • Section 16 of the 2000 Act: Prohibits the sentencing of a juvenile to death or life imprisonment.
• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the 2015 Act): This Act repealed the 2000 Act and includes provisions for determining age.
  • Section 94 of the 2015 Act: Provides the procedure for determining age, similar to Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules.
• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (the 2007 Rules): These rules provide the procedure for determining age.
  • Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules: Specifies the documents to be considered for age determination, prioritizing matriculation certificates, school birth certificates, and birth certificates from local authorities. It also mentions the procedure for medical age determination.
• Article 39 of the Constitution of India: This article directs the State to ensure that children are given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner and are protected against exploitation.
• U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970: These rules prescribe the preparation of a Family Register, which contains family-wise names and particulars of all persons ordinarily residing in the village.

The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at the reformation and rehabilitation of juveniles. The legal framework also highlights that the determination of juvenility should be done in a manner that promotes the best interests of the child.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the writ applicant convict:

• The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, argued that despite the delay in raising the plea of juvenility, the law allows it to be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case, as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2011.
• He contended that the Medical Board certificate and the Family Register provide clinching evidence that the writ applicant was around 15 years old in 1982.
• He relied on the three-judge bench decision in Abuzar Hossain ALIAS Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489] to support his arguments.
• The counsel prayed for the writ petition to be allowed and directions to be issued for complete justice.

Submissions on behalf of the State:

• The Additional Advocate General for the State, Mr. Ardhendhumauli Kr. Prasad, opposed the writ application, arguing that the Family Register is not admissible as evidence and its entries are not decisive in determining age.
• He argued that the writ applicant had not placed any educational institution documents on record and that no ossification test or modern recognized method was used for age determination.
• He referred to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in Ashok v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 643 of 2020), which directed the Sessions Court to examine the claim of juvenility.
• He prayed that the Sessions Court should look into the Medical Board certificate and the Family Register for authenticity and genuineness.

The innovativeness of the argument from the petitioner’s side lies in the fact that he raised the issue of juvenility after the dismissal of his appeal, and special leave petition, and relied on the medical board report and family register to support his claim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Sessions Court should examine the authenticity and genuineness of the documents relied upon by the writ applicant to support his plea of being a juvenile on the date of the commission of the alleged offense in the year 1982 and also subject the convict to further ossification test?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principle laid down in Abuzar Hossain ALIAS Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489]* that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage.
• The Court relied on Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2005) 3 SCC 551]* and Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana [(2005) 3 SCC 685]* to emphasize that the 2000 Act applies to pending cases and that a person not a juvenile under the 1986 Act could be treated as one under the 2000 Act for sentencing purposes.
• The Court used Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 5 SCC 344]* and Kalu v. State of Haryana [(2012) 8 SCC 34]* to support the view that a court can determine the juvenility of a person even after conviction.
• The Court considered Manoj v. State of Haryana [(2022) 6 SCC 187]* to establish that a Family Register is relevant to determine age.
• The Court relied on Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2013 SC 553]* to explain the nature of the inquiry under Section 7A of the 2000 Act.
• The Court followed Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 13 SCC 751]* to emphasize that medical opinion should be sought only when other documentary evidence is not available.
• The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 1 SCC 283]* that the ossification test is advisory in nature and cannot override other documentary evidence.
• The Court followed Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh [(2009) 6 SCC 681]* and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar [(2008) 15 SCC 223]* to state that the ossification test is not conclusive for age determination.
• The Court relied on Mukarrab v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2017) 2 SCC 210]* to reiterate that the ossification test is not conclusive, especially for those who have crossed 30 years of age.
• The Court followed Arnit Das v. State of Bihar [(2000) 5 SCC 488]* and Rajendra Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2002) 2 SCC 287]* to emphasize that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted and that in borderline cases, the court should lean in favor of holding the accused to be a juvenile.
• The Court followed Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 1079]* to reiterate that Section 94 of the 2015 Act does not give precedence to matriculation certificates.
• The Court relied on Ram Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [(2021) SCC Online SC 142]* to emphasize that the reliability of the ossification test remains vulnerable and that when it cannot yield trustworthy results, it cannot be made a basis for age determination.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the principle of protecting the rights of juveniles, even when the claim is made belatedly. The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at the reformation of juveniles and that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted. The Court’s reasoning was also based on the understanding that the ossification test is not conclusive, especially for older individuals, and that documentary evidence should be given due consideration. The Court also considered the practical difficulties faced by individuals in obtaining proof of age, particularly in cases involving poverty and illiteracy.

The Court’s reasoning also reflects a concern for ensuring that the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act are not defeated by procedural hurdles. The Court’s decision to direct a fresh inquiry and ossification test is an attempt to balance the need for a fair trial with the protection of juvenile rights.

The sentiment analysis shows that the Court was most influenced by the need to protect juvenile rights and the beneficial nature of the Juvenile Justice Act. The legal considerations weighed more heavily than the factual aspects of the case, indicating the Court’s emphasis on upholding the principles of juvenile justice.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a legal proceeding, even after the final disposal of the case.
• The Family Register is a relevant document for determining age, though its evidentiary value depends on the facts of each case.
• The ossification test is not conclusive, particularly for older individuals, and should be considered in conjunction with other evidence.
• The Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at the reformation and rehabilitation of juveniles, and a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted.
• Courts should lean in favor of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases.
• The standard of proof for age determination is the degree of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of juveniles and ensures that claims of juvenility are given due consideration, even when raised belatedly. It also highlights the limitations of the ossification test and the need to consider other forms of evidence. The decision may lead to a greater scrutiny of age determination processes in criminal cases and may prompt authorities to adopt a more child-centric approach.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Sessions Court, Agra, is directed to examine the claim of the writ applicant to juvenility within one month from the date of communication of the order.
2. The Sessions Court shall examine the authenticity and genuineness of the Family Register and other documents relied upon by the writ applicant.
3. The Sessions Court shall also subject the convict to a further ossification test, but the Court has clarified that the ossification test may not be conclusive.
4. The Sessions Court is directed to submit a report to the Supreme Court within two months from the date of communication of the order.