Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Rejects Juvenile Claim Based on School Records: Vinod Katara vs. State of U.P. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 171
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a convicted individual, years after their conviction, successfully claim juvenility based on a family register when school records indicate otherwise? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a case where a convict, after multiple levels of appeals, claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense. The Court examined the hierarchy of evidence for determining age under the Juvenile Justice Act, ultimately upholding the conviction based on school records. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Mehta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The petitioner, Vinod Katara, was convicted for murder on 6th January, 1986, along with three co-accused, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The incident occurred on 10th September, 1982. Katara’s appeal to the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on 4th March, 2016, and his subsequent Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 16th August, 2016. However, following a directive from the Allahabad High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Juvenile Justice Board was ordered to inquire into the ages of convicts who might have been juveniles at the time of their offenses. A medical board examined Katara on 10th December, 2021, estimating his age to be around 56 years at the time of the report. Katara then filed a writ petition claiming he was around 15 years old at the time of the 1982 incident and sought verification of his juvenility claim.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court, in response to a PIL, directed the Juvenile Justice Boards in Uttar Pradesh to investigate the ages of convicts who might have been juveniles at the time of their offenses. Following this, a medical board examined the petitioner, Vinod Katara, and estimated his age to be around 56 years in 2021. Based on this, Katara filed a writ petition claiming he was a juvenile at the time of the offense in 1982. The Supreme Court directed the Sessions Court, Agra, to examine the juvenility claim, specifically focusing on the authenticity of the family register submitted by Katara. The Sessions Court was also directed to conduct a medical examination. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra, submitted a report stating that the petitioner’s date of birth was 2nd July, 1960, based on school records, and that he was a major at the time of the incident.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which outlines the procedure for age determination. Specifically, Section 94(2) of the JJ Act prioritizes the date of birth certificate from the school as the primary evidence for age determination, followed by a birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat. The ossification test is to be considered only in the absence of the first two criteria. The relevant portion of the provision is as follows:
“Section 94(2) of the JJ Act provides for the mode of determination of age. In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Additional District and Sessions Judge’s conclusion that the X-ray examination could not accurately determine the petitioner’s age was unsustainable. He pointed to an earlier medical report from 10th December, 2021, which stated the petitioner’s age was around 56 years.
• The counsel argued that the contemporaneous documents relied upon by the Additional District and Sessions Judge were flawed. Specifically, he pointed out that the petitioner’s birth year was the same as his brother’s (1960), which was not possible as two other children were born and died in between.
• The counsel further contended that the school records relied upon by the Additional District and Sessions Judge were unreliable because the Principal of the school neither verified the documents nor was examined in evidence.
• The counsel argued that the assumption that there was an overwriting in the family register was without foundation.
• The counsel argued that under Section 94 of the JJ Act, if reliable school records are not available, the court can rely on other documentary evidence or, in its absence, the medical board’s opinion based on X-ray examination.
• The counsel submitted that the family register showing the petitioner’s birth year as 1968, along with the medical report, should be given precedence, and the petitioner should be declared a juvenile.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the inquiry report was based on a detailed process of evidence collection and analysis.
• The counsel submitted that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence, found the petitioner’s date of birth as 2nd July, 1960, based on contemporaneous school records.
• The counsel argued that the petitioner’s family register was unreliable, as the original register was not available in the Panchayat records.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the offense on 10th September, 1982.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act): This provision outlines the procedure for determining the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile. It prioritizes the date of birth certificate from the school, followed by a birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat, and lastly, the ossification test.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 94(2) of the JJ Act: The Court relied on this provision to prioritize the school records over other forms of evidence, such as the family register and ossification test.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the school records and the unreliability of the family register. The Court emphasized that under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal. The medical report was given less weight due to the uncertainty of age estimation based on X-ray after 25 years of age.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of juvenility, stating that:

“…the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge that the actual date of birth of the accused petitioner is 2nd July, 1960 and the opinion of the Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is apropos and deserves to be accepted.”

The Court further noted:

“Section 94(2) of the JJ Act provides for the mode of determination of age. In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2…”

The Court concluded:

“In the wake of above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed as such.”

Key Takeaways

• School records are the primary evidence for determining age under the Juvenile Justice Act.
• Family registers may be considered unreliable if not supported by other evidence.
• Ossification tests are the last resort for age determination when other documentary evidence is not available.
• The Court emphasized the importance of contemporaneous evidence in determining the age of an individual.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in determining the age of a person claiming juvenility, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal as per Section 94(2) of the JJ Act. This case reinforces the hierarchy of evidence for age determination under the JJ Act and solidifies the position that school records are given precedence over other forms of evidence, particularly when the other forms of evidence are not reliable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the conviction of Vinod Katara. The Court relied on the school records, which indicated that Katara was a major at the time of the offense, and found the family register to be unreliable. This judgment underscores the importance of school records in determining age under the Juvenile Justice Act and reinforces the hierarchy of evidence in such cases.