Supreme Court Rejects Juvenile Claim Based on Matriculation Certificate: Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (25 July 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 718

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J

Can a matriculation certificate be the sole determinant of a person’s age when other credible documents suggest otherwise? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case involving a claim of juvenility by an accused. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in prioritizing a matriculation certificate over other age-related documents. The two-judge bench, consisting of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On 28 October 2015, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (the appellant) filed a First Information Report (FIR) at PS Ekka, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, regarding the disappearance of his son. The FIR was registered as Case Crime 252 of 2016 under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant’s son, a 13-year-old student, went missing after receiving a phone call from an unknown person claiming to be his teacher. The victim was allegedly murdered after a ransom demand, and his body was found in a canal. The second respondent was arrested during the investigation.

On 9 December 2015, the accused (second respondent) claimed to be a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, stating he was 16 years, 10 months, and 11 days old on the date of the incident. He presented a matriculation certificate from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Delhi, showing his date of birth as 17 December 1998.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) initially allowed the accused’s application, declaring him a juvenile on 2 July 2016. The appellant appealed to the Sessions Judge, Firozabad, who remanded the case to the JJB for a medical examination on 16 September 2016. A Medical Board reported the accused’s age as approximately nineteen years on 19 November 2016. The accused’s revision petition before the High Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 4 January 2017. The High Court directed the JJB to expedite the pending application on 17 April 2017. On 1 July 2017, the JJB rejected the juvenility claim based on the medical report and other documents, including a driving license and Aadhaar card where the accused had declared his date of birth as 17 December 1995. The Sessions Judge rejected the appeal against the JJB order on 2 August 2017.

The accused then filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court allowed the revision on 14 November 2018, declaring the accused a minor based on the matriculation certificate. The complainant then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution on 14 January 2019. The Supreme Court issued notice to the CBSE on 16 April 2019, directing it to produce all necessary records. After the CBSE filed an affidavit on 6 May 2019, the Supreme Court proceeded for final disposal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act of 2000) and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Rules of 2007).

Section 7A of the Act of 2000 outlines the procedure when a claim of juvenility is raised before a court:

“S.7A. 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 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 a child or not, stating his age as nearly as 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 Rules of 2007 specifies the procedure for determining age:

“12 Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.
…
(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 the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act of 2015) repealed the Act of 2000. Section 94 of the Act of 2015 outlines the procedure for age determination, which is different from Rule 12(3) of the Rules of 2007.

Section 94 of the Act of 2015 states:

“94. Presumption and determination of age .- (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining —
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.”

Arguments

The appellant, represented by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, argued that:

• There is a serious dispute regarding the authenticity of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate issued by the CBSE.
  • The date of birth in the school register of Saket Vidya Sthali, where the second respondent studied from Kindergarten to the fourth standard, is 17 December 1995.
  • The date of birth in the second respondent’s learner’s driving license, driving license, and Aadhaar card is 17 December 1995.
  • The driving license and Aadhaar card were obtained after the second respondent voluntarily disclosed his date of birth as 17 December 1995.
  • The Headmaster of Maa Anjani Public School, where the second respondent studied later, stated that the date of birth of 17 December 1998 was recorded based on information from the parent, without any supporting affidavit or record.
  • The CBSE affidavit indicates that the date of birth in its records was adopted based solely on the roll submitted by the school, without any independent verification.
• The material on record, including documents collected during the investigation, clearly indicates that the second respondent’s date of birth is 17 December 1995.
• The decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 9 SCC 750] cannot be considered in isolation, given the subsequent decisions in Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489] and Prag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2016) 12 SCC 744].
• The Act of 2000 has been repealed by the Act of 2015. Section 94 of the Act of 2015 does not give precedence to the matriculation certificate for determining age. As Section 94 deals with a matter of procedure, the application claiming juvenility should be decided based on Section 94 of the Act of 2015, which would indicate that the second respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident.

The second respondent, represented by Mr. Ravindra Singh, argued that:

• The JJB, after a detailed inquiry, concluded that the second respondent’s date of birth is 17 December 1998.
• The date in the Aadhaar card or driving license may have been wrongly given by the accused for seeking undue advantage, which should not negate the juvenility claim substantiated by the matriculation certificate.
• The date recorded in the matriculation certificate must prevail under Rule 12(3).
• The cross-examination of Dr. Udayvir Singh Yadav, a former Principal/Manager of Saket Vidya Sthali, contains several inconsistencies, which casts doubt on the certificate issued by that school.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Sessions Judge’s view that the second respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident, based solely on the matriculation certificate.
2. Whether the matriculation certificate should be given precedence over other evidentiary documents, especially when there is a dispute regarding the authenticity of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed how each submission made by the parties was treated:

The Court also analyzed how each authority was viewed:

• Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 9 SCC 750]: The Court noted that while this case had given precedence to the matriculation certificate, it was not an absolute rule. The Court distinguished this case, stating that the matriculation certificate can be discarded if found to be fabricated or manipulated.
• Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489]: The Court followed this case, which stated that the credibility and acceptability of the documents would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
• Prag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2016) 12 SCC 744]: The Court followed this case, which reiterated the need for an inquiry when there is doubt about the correctness of the date of birth.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the Sessions Judge’s view that the second respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident. The Court concluded that the date of birth in the matriculation certificate could not be accepted as authentic or credible.

The Court stated, “It is evident from the above analysis that the date of birth which was forwarded in the roll of students of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad was the sole basis of the date of birth which was recorded in the matriculation certificate.”

The Court further noted, “On the other hand, there is a clear and unimpeachable evidence in the form of the date of birth which has been recorded in the records of Saket Vidya Sthali school which is supported by the voluntary disclosure made by the second respondent while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and the driving licence.”

The Court also observed, “For the reasons which we have indicated, the date of birth as reflected therein cannot be accepted as authentic or credible. Once we come to the conclusion, as we have, that the date of birth of the second respondent is 17 December 1995, he was not entitled to the claim of juvenility as of the date of the alleged incident which took place on 18 August 2015.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and lack of credibility surrounding the matriculation certificate. The court emphasized that the date of birth in the matriculation certificate was based solely on the school’s submission without any independent verification. The court found that the date of birth recorded in the Saket Vidya Sthali school register, supported by the second respondent’s own statements in his driving license and Aadhaar card, was more credible.

The court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspect included the conflicting dates of birth in various documents, while the legal aspect involved the interpretation of Rule 12(3) of the Rules of 2007 and the precedence of documents.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that while a matriculation certificate is given precedence under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007, this precedence is not absolute. The court can examine the authenticity and credibility of the certificate, especially when there is conflicting evidence.
• The court emphasized that the date of birth recorded in school records, supported by other credible documents such as a driving license and Aadhaar card, can be given more weight than a matriculation certificate, especially when the matriculation certificate is based solely on information provided by the school without independent verification.
• This judgment highlights the importance of thorough investigation and verification of documents when determining juvenility, especially in cases where there are conflicting age records.
• The decision underscores that the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act is to protect genuine juveniles, not to allow individuals who are actually adults to escape the consequences of their actions by claiming juvenility based on manipulated or unreliable documents.
• The judgment also indicates that the court can look behind the documents to examine the correctness of the documents, kept during the normal course of business.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the second respondent be dealt with in accordance with law, based on the finding that he was not a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while a matriculation certificate is given precedence under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007, this precedence is not absolute. The court has the power to assess the authenticity and credibility of the matriculation certificate, especially when there is conflicting evidence. The judgment clarifies that the matriculation certificate cannot be the sole determinant of age, and other credible documents and circumstances must be considered.

This case developed the law by:

• Clarifying that the precedence given to a matriculation certificate is not absolute and can be overridden by other credible evidence.
• Emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation and verification of documents when determining juvenility.
• Reinforcing that the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act is to protect genuine juveniles, not to allow individuals who are actually adults to escape the consequences of their actions by claiming juvenility based on manipulated or unreliable documents.