Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling on Juvenile Status in Kathua Rape Case: State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Shubam Sangra (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 16 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1137
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and J.B. Pardiwala

Can a court rely solely on a birth certificate to determine if an accused was a juvenile at the time of a crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case stemming from the horrific Kathua rape incident. This case highlights the complexities of determining juvenile status, especially when conflicting documents exist. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough inquiry, especially when dealing with heinous crimes.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and J.B. Pardiwala, with Justice Pardiwala authoring the judgment. The court unanimously ruled in favor of the appellant, the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Case Background

The case revolves around the heinous gang rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl in Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir, in January 2018. The victim, a member of the nomadic Bakarwal community, was found dead after being missing for a week. Eight individuals were arrested in connection with the crime, including the respondent, Shubam Sangra, who claimed to be a juvenile.

The prosecution’s case against Shubam Sangra included allegations that he had lured the victim, administered sedatives, and participated in the rape and murder. The other accused were tried separately, with six being convicted and one acquitted. Shubam Sangra’s case was separated due to his claim of being a juvenile.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, acting on a writ petition, directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to determine Shubam Sangra’s age. A medical board was formed, which estimated his age to be between 19 and 23 years. However, the High Court later instructed the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kathua, to determine the age independently, without being influenced by the medical report.

The CJM, Kathua, relied on a birth certificate from the Municipal Committee, Hira Nagar, and the testimony of Shubam Sangra’s father to declare him a juvenile. The State challenged this order in the High Court, which upheld the CJM’s decision. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013, and the Jammu & Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014.

Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013, outlines the procedure for determining a claim of juvenility before any court. It states:
“Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be…”

Rule 74 of the Jammu & Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014, specifies the process for age determination:
“The Board or the Committee, as the case may be shall, as far as possible, decide the juvenility or otherwise, on the basis of physical appearance or documents available, if any. Where an inquiry is instituted by the Board or the Committee for determination of age, such inquiry shall be conducted on the basis of following evidence: — (i) the birth certificate issued by a Corporation or a Municipal Committee or any other notified authority; or (ii) the matriculation or equivalent certificate; or (iii) in absence of the certificates mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) or in case of any contradiction arising therefrom, the authority deciding the age issue may refer the matter to a duly constituted Medical Board, which shall record its findings and submit to the Juvenile Justice Board.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Jammu & Kashmir)’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the lower courts erred by ignoring the statutory rules for determining a juvenile’s age.
• They contended that there was no reliable documentary evidence to prove Shubam Sangra was born on 23.10.2002.
• The State highlighted discrepancies in the birth certificates and school records, pointing out that the first two children of Om Prakash (Shubam’s father) were born within a span of three months, while Shubam was born several years later.
• The State emphasized that, according to Rule 74(3) of the Rules, 2014, when there is a contradiction between the certificates, the matter should be referred to a Medical Board.
• The State relied on the Medical Board’s report, which indicated Shubam Sangra’s age to be between 19 and 23 years, suggesting he was not a juvenile at the time of the crime.
• They argued that the heinous nature of the crime should not be overlooked, and a plea of juvenility should not be allowed based on doubtful certificates.

Respondent (Shubam Sangra)’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the lower courts correctly determined his age, and there was no error in their decision.
• He submitted that Rule 74(3) does not apply because there was no contradiction in the certificates, and the birth certificate from the Municipal Committee was valid.
• The respondent contended that the school admission form from 2008, which recorded his birth date as 23.10.2002, was sufficient proof of his age.
• He argued that medical opinion is not conclusive and should not be given undue weightage.
• The respondent emphasized that, regardless of the crime’s nature, if he was a juvenile at the time of the offense, he should be tried as a juvenile.
• He argued that there was no document indicating that the respondent was a major on the date of the alleged offense.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order?

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 relied on several authorities to arrive at its conclusion. Here’s how each was viewed:

• Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam [CITATION]: The Court emphasized that a plea of juvenility cannot be based on doubtful certificates and that medical evidence is crucial in such cases.
• Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur [CITATION]: This case was used to interpret the word “may” in statutory provisions as mandatory when the context requires it.
• Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: This authority was used to highlight that the interpretation of a provision as directory or mandatory depends on the intent of the legislature.
• Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged that it should not conduct a roving inquiry into school certificates unless they are found to be fabricated. However, this was distinguished in the present case due to the contradictions in the documents.
• Darga Ram alias Gunga v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The Court considered this case to show that medical opinion is important, but also clarified that the facts were specific to that case and should not be generalized.
• Mukarrab v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: This authority was used to clarify that the approach in Darga Ram should not be generalized.
• Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to differentiate between the procedures under the 2000 and 2015 Juvenile Justice Acts.
• Parag Bhati v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act should not be used as a shield by those who commit heinous crimes.
• Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: This case was used to highlight that the credibility of documents depends on the facts of each case.
• Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to show that mere affidavits are not sufficient for a juvenility claim made for the first time in appeal.
• Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for innocent law-breakers, not those who use it as a shield.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Contradictory Documentary Evidence: The Court found significant discrepancies in the birth certificates, school records, and other documents presented by the respondent.
• Medical Board Report: The Court gave significant weight to the report of the Special Medical Board, which estimated the respondent’s age to be between 19 and 23 years.
• Statutory Interpretation: The Court interpreted Rule 74(3) of the Rules, 2014, to mean that when there is a contradiction in the documentary evidence, the matter should be referred to a medical board.
• Nature of the Crime: The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime and emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act should not be used as a shield to avoid punishment.
• Credibility of Evidence: The Court emphasized that the credibility and acceptability of documents depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court’s sentiment was that the respondent’s claim of juvenility was not supported by credible evidence and appeared to be an attempt to evade justice.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that Shubam Sangra was not a juvenile at the time of the offense. The Court emphasized that when there are contradictions in documentary evidence, the matter should be referred to a medical board for age determination. The Court found that the lower courts had failed to properly consider the medical evidence and had relied on doubtful certificates.

The Court stated, “The word ‘may’ should be read as ‘shall’ having regard to the very object of sub-rule (3) of Rule 74.” This highlights the mandatory nature of referring the case to a medical board when contradictions exist.

The Court also observed, “The judicial system cannot be allowed to be taken to ransom by having resort to imaginative and concocted grounds by taking advantage of loose sentences appearing in the evidence of some of the witnesses.” This underscores the need for a robust and reliable system for determining juvenility.

The Court further stated, “The Juvenile Justice Act which is certainly meant to treat a child accused with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and settle into the mainstream of society, the same cannot be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice while conducting the trial and treatment of heinous offences.” This highlights the need to balance the benevolent nature of the Act with the need for justice.

The Court held that the respondent was not a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence and should be tried as an adult.

Key Takeaways

• When determining the age of an accused, courts must conduct a thorough inquiry, especially when conflicting documents exist.
• Medical evidence plays a crucial role in age determination, particularly when documentary evidence is contradictory.
• The Juvenile Justice Act should not be used as a shield to avoid punishment for heinous crimes.
• The word “may” in statutory provisions can be interpreted as mandatory depending on the context and intent of the legislation.
• The credibility and acceptability of documents must be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent, Shubam Sangra, be tried as an adult, in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there are contradictions in the documentary evidence regarding the age of an accused, the matter should be referred to a medical board, and the medical board’s opinion should be given due weightage. This judgment clarifies the procedure for age determination under the Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2013, and the Rules, 2014.

This ruling changes the previous position of law by emphasizing that the courts should not rely solely on birth certificates when there are contradictions and that medical evidence is a crucial component of age determination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Shubam Sangra underscores the importance of a thorough and reliable process for determining the age of an accused, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes. The Court’s ruling emphasizes that courts must not rely solely on potentially unreliable documents when determining juvenility and that medical evidence should be given due weightage when there are contradictions. This judgment serves as a critical reminder that the Juvenile Justice Act, while benevolent in nature, should not be used as a shield by those who commit grave offenses.