Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Rejects Juvenile Claim Based on Arms License: Ram Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 88

Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hemant Gupta, B.R. Gavai, JJ.

Can a claim of juvenility be rejected based on a self-declared date of birth in an arms license application, despite a medical board report suggesting a lower age? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal where the appellant claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense. This judgment clarifies the weight of medical evidence versus self-incriminating documents in determining age for the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act. The bench consisted of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hemant Gupta, and B.R. Gavai, with the opinion authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Ram Vijay Singh against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The appellant, seeking bail, claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offense, which occurred on 20 July 1982. He presented a family register, an Aadhaar card, and a 1982 High Court order that granted him bail based on a radiologist’s report estimating his age between 15½ and 17½ years at the time. The appellant had also filed a miscellaneous application before the High Court claiming juvenility, which remained undecided when the High Court dismissed his appeal on merits. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the juvenility application. Subsequently, a Medical Board was constituted which determined the age of the appellant to be between 40-55 years. The High Court, based on this medical report, concluded that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense. However, the Supreme Court also took note of an arms license application submitted by the appellant himself, where he had stated his date of birth as 30 December 1961, which would make him 21 years old at the time of the incident.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appeal against the conviction. Subsequently, the appellant filed a criminal miscellaneous application before the High Court claiming juvenility, which was not decided. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the juvenility application. The High Court then sought a report from a Medical Board, which estimated the appellant’s age to be between 40-55 years. Based on this report, the High Court concluded that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense. However, the Supreme Court, upon further examination, considered the appellant’s self-declared date of birth in his arms license application.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the legal framework for determining juvenility, particularly focusing on Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and its analogous provision, Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 94 of the 2015 Act outlines the procedure for age determination. It stipulates that if a person appears to be a child, the Committee or Board shall record the observation without further confirmation. If there is doubt, the process of age determination is to be undertaken by seeking evidence such as:
✓ Date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation certificate.
✓ Birth certificate from a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat.
✓ In the absence of the above, an ossification test or other latest medical age determination test.

The Court also considered Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which provided a similar procedure for age determination, including a provision to give the benefit of the lower side of the age within a margin of one year. This provision is not present in Section 94 of the 2015 Act. The Court highlighted that the ossification test is not conclusive and should be considered along with other circumstances.

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as follows:

“Section 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 true age of that person.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court had granted him bail in 1982 based on a radiologist’s report that estimated his age to be between 15½ and 17½ years. Therefore, he should be treated as a juvenile.
• Even considering the maximum age of 55 years from the recent medical report, the appellant would still be less than 18 years old on the date of the incident (20 July 1982).
• The procedure in Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, which is now part of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, mandates that once an ossification test is conducted, its findings cannot be ignored.
• The appellant’s counsel relied on the principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the juvenile when the exact assessment of the age cannot be done.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the procedure under Rule 12(3)(b) is not materially different from Section 94 of the Act, except for the discretion to lower the age by one year, which has been omitted in the Act.
• The respondent cited the judgment in Mukarrab & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2017) 2 SCC 210], which held that radiological examination is a useful guiding factor but not conclusive, and is subject to a margin of error. Medical evidence should be considered with other circumstances.
• The ossification test cannot be regarded as conclusive, especially when the person has crossed the age of thirty, as age cannot be determined with precision.
• The respondent emphasized that the appellant himself had provided his date of birth as 30.12.1961 in the arms license application, making him 21 years old at the time of the incident.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the following issues were addressed:

1. Whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.1982?
2. Whether the medical report determining the age of the appellant as between 40-55 years is conclusive for determining juvenility?
3. Whether the self-declared date of birth in the arms license application can be considered for determining the age of the appellant?

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:

Cases:

Statutes:

Rules:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal [(2012) 10 SCC 489]* to reiterate that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage.
• The Court relied on Mukarrab & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2017) 2 SCC 210]* to hold that medical evidence, including ossification tests, is a useful guiding factor but not conclusive for determining age.
• The Court followed State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [(2015) 7 SCC 773]* and Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand [(2008) 13 SCC 133]* to emphasize that the ossification test is not the sole criterion for age determination and cannot be regarded as conclusive.
• The Court referred to Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. [(2020) 7 SCC 1]* to apply the principle that law does not demand the impossible (lex non cogit ad impossibilia), suggesting that an ossification test cannot be the sole basis when it cannot yield reliable results.
• The Court cited Ilangovan v. State of T.N. [(2020) 10 SCC 533]*, Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366]* and Rohtas v. State of Haryana [(2019) 10 SCC 554]* to clarify that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a strict rule of law in India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Self-Declared Age: The appellant’s self-declared date of birth in the arms license application was considered a crucial and reliable piece of evidence. The Court noted that this document was created before the incident, making it more trustworthy than later claims of juvenility.
• Unreliability of Ossification Test: The Court reiterated that ossification tests are not conclusive, especially for individuals in the age range of 40-55 years. The Court emphasized that medical evidence must be considered along with other circumstances.
• Interim Nature of Bail Order: The 1982 High Court order granting bail was considered an interim measure and not a conclusive determination of age. The absence of the medical report supporting that order further weakened its evidentiary value.
• Rejection of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus: The Court reiterated that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a strict rule of law in India, and that the testimony of a witness can be believed even if some parts are disbelieved.
• Quality of Evidence: The Court emphasized that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. Therefore, the non-examination of one witness, Girendra Singh, was not considered consequential.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal interpretation, with a slight emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, particularly the appellant’s self-declared age.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the available evidence, prioritizing the self-declared date of birth and the limitations of the ossification test for older individuals.

The Supreme Court stated, “The medical report in support of the bail order is not available. Such order granting bail cannot be conclusive determination of age of the appellant.”

The Supreme Court also stated, “Therefore, in the absence of any reliable trustworthy medical evidence to find out age of the appellant, the ossification test conducted in year 2020 when the appellant was 55 years of age cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on the date of the incident.”

Further, the Supreme Court stated, “Since there is a document signed by the appellant much before the date of occurrence, therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile on the date of incident as he was more than 21 years of age as per his application submitted to obtain the Arms Licence.”

Key Takeaways

• Self-Declared Age Matters: A self-declared date of birth in an official document, such as an arms license application, carries significant evidentiary weight, especially when it predates the alleged offense and claim of juvenility.
• Ossification Tests Are Not Conclusive: Ossification tests, while useful, are not conclusive for determining age, particularly in older individuals. They must be considered along with other reliable evidence.
• Interim Orders Are Not Final: Interim orders, such as bail orders, are not conclusive proof of age and should not be relied upon as such.
• Quality over Quantity: The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. The non-examination of a witness may not be consequential if the available evidence is sufficient.
• Rejection of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus: The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a strict rule of law in India, and the testimony of a witness can be believed even if some parts are disbelieved.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a self-declared date of birth in an official document, such as an arms license application, can be considered a reliable piece of evidence to determine age, especially when it predates the alleged offense and claim of juvenility. This judgment reinforces the principle that ossification tests are not conclusive, particularly for older individuals, and must be considered along with other reliable evidence. The Court also clarified that interim orders, such as bail orders, are not conclusive proof of age. This judgment does not change any previous position of law, but rather clarifies the existing legal principles relating to age determination in cases of juvenility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Ram Vijay Singh. The Court rejected the claim of juvenility, primarily based on the appellant’s self-declared date of birth in his arms license application, which indicated he was 21 years old at the time of the offense. The Court emphasized that ossification tests are not conclusive, particularly for older individuals, and that self-incriminating documents can be considered reliable evidence. This judgment clarifies the evidentiary standards for determining juvenility and reinforces the importance of self-declared information in official documents.