Supreme Court Upholds Adult Trial for Accused in 2011 Robbery Case: Manoj @ Monu vs. State of Haryana (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of juvenility in criminal cases based on conflicting evidence.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal

Case Name: Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

Judgment Date: 15 February 2022

Can a person accused of a serious crime be tried as a juvenile if their age is disputed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused claimed to be a minor at the time of the offense. The court examined various forms of age proof, including school records, birth certificates, medical reports, and family registers, to determine the correct course of action. This case highlights the complexities involved in determining juvenility and the importance of reliable evidence in the Indian legal system.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian. Justice Hemant Gupta authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

On January 18, 2011, an incident occurred where the appellant, Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary, allegedly waylaid a car and snatched ₹22 lakh from its occupants. During the robbery, one of the occupants, Bhim Singh, was fatally shot.

Initially, the appellant was tried as an adult. However, on October 7, 2014, during the trial, the appellant claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the incident. He based his claim on a school record that stated his date of birth as May 13, 1993. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted this claim on January 9, 2015, declaring him a juvenile.

This order was challenged in the High Court, which remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh adjudication on May 4, 2016. After the remand, the Additional Sessions Judge, based on an ossification test report, determined the appellant’s age to be 16 years, 8 months, and 5 days old on the date of the incident. The High Court, however, set aside this order, relying on a family register to conclude that the appellant was not a juvenile. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge initially declared the appellant a juvenile based on his school record. However, the High Court overturned this decision and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh determination of age. On remand, the Additional Sessions Judge relied on an ossification test report, which estimated the appellant’s age to be 23-24 years at the time of the test. However, the judge gave the appellant the benefit of a one-year variation, concluding that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense. The High Court, in its second review, set aside the Additional Sessions Judge’s order, relying on a family register that indicated the appellant was not a juvenile. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which outlines the procedure for determining age in cases of juveniles in conflict with the law. This rule specifies that the court must first consider:

• Matriculation or equivalent certificates.
• Date of birth certificate from the first school attended (other than a play school).
• Birth certificate from a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat.

Only in the absence of these documents, the court may seek a medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board. The court also noted that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the procedure for determining age is now part of Section 94 of the 2015 Act.

The court also referred to Section 8 and 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which outlines the procedure for registering births and deaths.

The court also referred to Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of entries in public or official registers.

The court also referred to the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970, which prescribes the maintenance of family registers in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Arguments

The appellant argued that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense, relying on a birth certificate, a school leaving certificate, and an ossification test report.

• Birth Certificate: The appellant presented a birth certificate from the Government of Uttar Pradesh, which stated his date of birth as May 13, 1993.
• School Leaving Certificate: The appellant also submitted a school leaving certificate from Adarsh Siksha Sadan, Pinna, showing he was a student there from July 12, 1999, to July 2, 2003.
• Ossification Test Report: The appellant relied on a medical report that estimated his age to be between 23 and 24 years when examined on May 13, 2016.

The State of Haryana argued that the appellant was not a juvenile, relying on the family register prepared under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970.

• Family Register: The State presented entries from the family register that indicated the appellant’s year of birth as 1990.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the family register cannot be the basis for determining a juvenile’s age under the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules, citing several judgments from the Allahabad High Court.

The State argued that the family register is a public document maintained in the regular course of business by a public servant and is therefore a relevant piece of evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offense.

A sub-issue that the court also dealt with was the reliability and evidentiary value of different documents used to determine the age of the appellant, specifically the birth certificate, school leaving certificate, ossification test report and the family register.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court analyzed how each authority was used in its reasoning:

• Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar [(2008) 15 SCC 223]*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that medical reports are not conclusive for determining age and that the principles of beneficial legislation are for interpreting the statute, not for determining whether a person is a juvenile.
• Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 1 SCC 283]*: The court referred to this case to reiterate that expert medical evidence is not binding on ocular evidence.
• Mukarrab v. State of U.P. [(2017) 2 SCC 210]*: The court cited this case to highlight that a mechanical view on age cannot be adopted solely based on medical opinion and that the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act is not to provide shelter to those accused of grave offenses.
• Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489]* and Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2016) 12 SCC 744]*: The court relied on these cases to state that the ossification test is not the sole criteria for age determination.
• Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand [(2008) 13 SCC 133]*: The court referred to this case to emphasize that it is not feasible to lay down an abstract formula for age determination and that medical evidence is a guiding factor but not conclusive.
• State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [(2015) 7 SCC 773]*: The court relied on this case to state that ossification test is not the sole criteria for age determination.
• Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam [(2001) 5 SCC 714]*: The court cited this case to reiterate that an X-ray ossification test is not infallible and cannot indicate the exact date of birth.
• Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 584]*: The court relied on this case to highlight that Section 35 of the Evidence Act applies to both civil and criminal proceedings.
• Krishna Pal v. State of U.P. [2010 SCC OnLine All 695]* and Shiv Patta v. State of U.P. [2013 SCC OnLine All 14202]*: The court cited these cases to support that a family register is a public record and is maintained in discharge of statutory duties.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the unreliability of the documents submitted by the appellant to prove his juvenility and the credibility of the family register produced by the State. The court emphasized that the appellant’s birth certificate was obtained after the filing of the application for juvenility, making it suspicious. The school leaving certificate was also deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and the doubtful existence of the school. The ossification test report was considered not conclusive, as it is not an exact science.

The Court also emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation, but the benefits cannot be granted to those who approach the court with untruthful statements.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual analysis of the evidence presented, with a lesser emphasis on the legal principles. The court focused on the credibility of the documents and the circumstances surrounding their creation, rather than solely relying on legal interpretations of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them, stating that the appellant’s documents were not reliable. The court emphasized that the birth certificate was obtained after the filing of the application, the school leaving certificate was from a doubtful school, and the ossification test was not conclusive. The court concluded that the family register was a more credible source of information.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not a juvenile at the time of the offense. The court found that the documents relied upon by the appellant were not genuine and trustworthy. The court stated, “Therefore, we find that the appellant has approached the Court with unclean hands as the documents relied upon by him are not genuine and trustworthy. Thus, we find that the appellant cannot be given benefit of juvenility.”

The court also noted, “If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation.”

The court further stated, “The view taken by the High Court is a possible view in law and does not call for any interference in the present appeal.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, and both judges agreed on the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of juvenility must be based on reliable evidence.
• Documents submitted to claim juvenility must be genuine and trustworthy.
• Medical reports, such as ossification tests, are not conclusive for determining age.
• Family registers, maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant, are relevant documents for determining age.
• The benefit of beneficial legislation cannot be extended to those who approach the court with untruthful statements.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The court simply dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the determination of juvenility must be based on reliable evidence, and the benefit of beneficial legislation cannot be extended to those who approach the court with untruthful statements. This case reinforces the existing legal position that medical reports are not conclusive for determining age and that family registers are relevant documents for determining age. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the appellant was not a juvenile at the time of the offense. The court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence in determining juvenility and cautioned against the misuse of beneficial legislation. The court found that the appellant had approached the court with unclean hands, as the documents relied upon by him were not genuine and trustworthy.