Supreme Court Rejects Fabricated Documents in Juvenility Claim: XYZ vs. Abhisheik & Anr (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 02 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 766

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a claim of juvenility be upheld when based on fabricated documents? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, overturning a High Court decision that had accepted a plea of juvenility based on questionable records. The case highlights the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents used in legal proceedings, especially those concerning the age of an accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR (No. 433/2015) filed on 24 July 2015, by the appellant, a minor, at PS City Kotwali, Satna. She alleged that she had been subjected to gang rape by the first respondent, Abhisheik, and other individuals. The alleged incident occurred approximately three to four months before the FIR was registered. During the investigation, the first respondent was arrested along with other accused persons.

On 6 August 2015, the first respondent claimed to be a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He presented a certificate from the Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, indicating his date of birth as 30 January 1999. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Satna, found this certificate to be fabricated and ordered the registration of a new FIR (No. 292/2015) against the first respondent for using forged documents.

The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, conducted an inquiry and concluded that the first respondent was not a juvenile based on witness statements, discrepancies in school records, and a medical opinion that placed his age between 17 and 21 years. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, however, reversed this decision, accepting the first respondent’s claim of juvenility based on a birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation in 2002, which stated his date of birth as 30 January 1999.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: This section outlines the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. It mandates that the court must conduct an inquiry, take necessary evidence, and record a finding on whether the person is a juvenile or not. It also allows for a claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case.
  The provision states:
  
  “7-A Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court:
  (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of 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 on affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly may be:
  Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the Rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.
  (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub- section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.”
• Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007: This rule specifies the procedure for determining the age of a juvenile. It prioritizes documentary evidence such as matriculation certificates, school birth certificates, and birth certificates from municipal authorities. Medical opinions are to be sought only when these documents are unavailable.
  
  The rule states:
  
  “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age – (1) (2) * * *
  (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining –
  (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
  (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
  (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
  (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
  and, while 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 and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses a(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”

The Court emphasized that the medical opinion should be sought only when the documentary evidence is unavailable or found to be fabricated.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in accepting the plea of juvenility based on fabricated documents.
• The appellant highlighted that the matriculation certificate submitted by the first respondent was found to be forged by the JMFC.
• The appellant contended that the birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation was also unreliable due to tampering and lack of proper records.
• The appellant relied on the report of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, which found the first respondent not to be a juvenile based on witness statements, discrepancies in school records, and medical opinion.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The first respondent argued that the High Court was correct in relying on the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation in 2002.
• The first respondent contended that the birth certificate was valid as it was signed by a competent authority and had a dispatch number.
• The first respondent argued that the school records, specifically the date of birth in the school register corroborated by the school director, supported his claim of juvenility.
• The first respondent submitted that the trial court should not have sought a medical opinion without first rejecting the birth and school certificates.

The core of the arguments revolved around the authenticity and reliability of the documentary evidence presented by the first respondent to prove his juvenility, and whether the High Court was correct in accepting the same.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

• Whether the High Court was justified in accepting the plea of juvenility of the first respondent based on the documents presented, and in reversing the findings of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge.

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 authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750 to emphasize that medical examination should only be resorted to when the documentary evidence is found to be fabricated.
• The Court used Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 to highlight that the credibility of documents depends on the specific facts of each case.
• The Court cited Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC 744 to support the view that an inquiry is permissible when there is doubt or a contradictory stance by the accused.
• The Court referred to Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 12 SCC 370 to show that a matriculation certificate cannot be accepted if the underlying school records are unreliable.
• The Court also referred to Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1079 to show that a matriculation certificate can be accepted if corroborated by school records.
• The Court used Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to highlight the procedure for determining juvenility.
• The Court relied on Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 to outline the order of preference for documents to be considered for age determination.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in relying on fabricated documents. The Court noted that the matriculation certificate was forged, the school records were doubtful, and the birth certificate from the municipal authority was not found in the original records. The Court held that the 4th Additional Sessions Judge had conducted a thorough inquiry and correctly concluded that the first respondent was not a juvenile.

The Supreme Court stated: “In the present case, the mother of the first respondent categorically stated during the course of the enquiry that the first respondent had not studied beyond Class 9 , and therefore did not appear for his matriculation examinations.”

The Court further observed: “After due scrutiny, it has been found that there is no entry of registration bearing entry no. 1545 pertaining to the date 18 April 2002 and the last entry is entry no 1544. Hence, it is apparent that the documents placed before the High Court by the first respondent in support of his claim of juvenility are fabricated and manipulated.”

The Court concluded: “The High Court has manifestly erred in reversing that conclusion and entering a finding of juvenility.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual discrepancies and the unreliability of the documents presented by the first respondent. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The matriculation certificate was found to be forged.
• The school records were inconsistent and not supported by underlying documents.
• The birth certificate from the municipal authority was not found in the original records and showed signs of tampering.
• The mother of the first respondent admitted that the first respondent had not studied beyond Class 9.
• The medical board’s report indicated that the first respondent was not a juvenile.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the factual inconsistencies and the evidence of fabrication, with legal principles guiding the procedural aspects.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Verification of Documents: The judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents submitted in legal proceedings, especially those related to age determination.
• Priority of Documentary Evidence: The Court reiterated the priority of documentary evidence like matriculation certificates, school birth certificates, and municipal birth certificates, but stressed that these documents must be genuine.
• Medical Opinion: Medical opinions should only be sought when documentary evidence is unavailable or found to be fabricated.
• Thorough Inquiry: Courts must conduct a thorough inquiry when a claim of juvenility is raised, considering all available evidence and witness statements.
• Implications for Future Cases: This judgment sets a precedent for rejecting claims of juvenility based on fabricated documents, ensuring that the process is not misused.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The impugned judgments of the High Court dated 22 August 2016 were set aside.
• The report of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, rejecting the plea of juvenility, was upheld.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a claim of juvenility cannot be upheld if it is based on fabricated documents. The Court emphasized that while documentary evidence is the first preference for determining age, such documents must be genuine and reliable. This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough inquiry into the authenticity of documents presented to claim juvenility and ensures that the process is not misused. This case does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the existing principles regarding the determination of juvenility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in XYZ vs. Abhisheik & Anr underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving claims of juvenility. The Court’s rejection of the first respondent’s plea, based on fabricated documents, serves as a crucial precedent for ensuring the integrity of the legal process and protecting the rights of victims. The judgment reinforces the need for a thorough and meticulous inquiry when dealing with claims of juvenility.