Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Heinous Crime Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 740
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J. and B.V. Nagarathna J.

Can a person accused of a heinous crime be considered a juvenile if their school records indicate they are below 18 years of age, even if there are doubts about the authenticity of some documents? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was involved in a violent incident resulting in multiple deaths. The core issue revolved around whether the accused, Nishant Solanki, could be declared a juvenile delinquent based on his matriculation certificate, despite discrepancies in other school records. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

On May 5, 2020, at approximately 4:00 PM, Nishant Solanki, along with other individuals, allegedly attacked Rishipal Singh Solanki and his family. The attack resulted in the death of Rishipal’s father, Bhopal Singh, who was declared “brought dead” at the hospital, and his uncle, Kaluram, who died on May 9, 2020, due to injuries sustained in the incident. Following the incident, Nishant’s mother, acting as his natural guardian, filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) in Baghpat, seeking to have Nishant declared a juvenile delinquent.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Nishant’s mother filed an application before the JJ Board to declare Nishant a juvenile. The appellant, Rishipal Singh Solanki, intervened and sought to cross-examine Nishant’s mother and other witnesses. The JJ Board dismissed an application for a medical test to determine Nishant’s age. Subsequently, the JJ Board declared Nishant a juvenile delinquent. Rishipal appealed this decision to the District and Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal. Rishipal then filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was also rejected. Aggrieved by these decisions, Rishipal appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015), and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act, 2000) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (JJ Rules, 2007). Key provisions include:

• Section 7A of the JJ Act, 2000: This section outlines the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court. It mandates an inquiry to determine the age of the person and recognizes such claims at any stage of the proceedings. “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…”
• Section 49 of the JJ Act, 2000: This section deals with the presumption and determination of age by a competent authority. It states that the age recorded by the authority is deemed to be the true age for the purposes of the Act. “Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be.”
• Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007: This rule specifies the procedure for determining age, prioritizing matriculation certificates, followed by birth certificates from the school first attended, and then birth certificates from a corporation or municipal authority. Medical opinion is to be sought only in the absence of these documents. “In every case concerning a child or a 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.”
• Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015: This section outlines the procedure when a claim of juvenility is made before a court other than a Board, mandating an inquiry to determine the age. “In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be”
• Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015: This section deals with the presumption and determination of age when a person is brought before the JJ Board or the Child Welfare Committee. It prioritizes school and matriculation certificates, followed by birth certificates from a corporation or municipal authority, and finally, ossification tests. “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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Rishipal Singh Solanki):

• The appellant argued that the JJ Board erroneously declared Nishant a juvenile, despite contradictions in the evidence regarding his date of birth.
• The School Admission Form (Ex.A-8) and a subsequent document (Ex.A-9) were allegedly signed by Nishant at ages four and twelve, respectively, but the signatures appeared identical, raising doubts about their authenticity.
• The Aadhaar number column in Ex.A-8, purportedly submitted in 2009, was problematic because Aadhaar numbers were first issued in 2010, suggesting the document was fabricated.
• The appellant questioned how Nishant could have moved from Class 1 to Class 8 in just five years, if his stated date of birth was correct.
• The appellant contended that a matriculation certificate should not be considered conclusive evidence of age when other evidence contradicts it. They cited cases like Parag Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., and Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal to support this view.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appellant’s contentions, arguing that the matriculation certificate could not be accepted at face value due to inconsistencies in the accompanying documents.
• They argued that the signatures on Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9 could not be genuine, given Nishant’s age at the time of their purported signing.

Respondent’s Arguments (Nishant Solanki & Mother):

• Nishant’s counsel argued that he was born on September 25, 2004, making him a minor (15 years and 8 months old) on the date of the incident.
• They presented school records showing Nishant’s admission to Class 1 in 2009, his transfer certificate from Sarvoday Public Junior High School, and his High School Certificate with a date of birth of 25.09.2004.
• They relied on Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. to argue that the matriculation certificate is sufficient proof of age under the JJ Act, 2015.
• They contended that an ossification test was not necessary and not conclusive as per Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and State of M.P. vs. Anoop Singh.
• The respondent argued that the appellant had failed to negate Nishant’s claim of juvenility, and therefore, Nishant was entitled to protection under the JJ Act, 2015.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the JJ Board was correct in declaring the respondent no.2-Nishant as a juvenile delinquent based on the matriculation certificate?
2. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the order of the JJ Board and the Sessions Court?
3. Whether the discrepancies in other school records should outweigh the matriculation certificate for the determination of age?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the procedure for determining age:

• Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that matriculation certificates are generally reliable for age determination unless fabricated.
• Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 – Supreme Court of India: The Court clarified that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that the credibility of documents depends on the facts of each case.
• Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 – Supreme Court of India: The Court emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted and that a liberal view should be taken in borderline cases.
• Jitendra Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2006) 9 SCC 428 – Supreme Court of India: The Court cautioned against lenient treatment of those not entitled to the benefit of the Act.
• Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and another (2010) 3 SCC 757 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that school records not maintained as public documents are not relevant for determining age.

On the use of medical evidence:

• Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) 13 SCC 133 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that medical evidence is a useful guiding factor but not conclusive.
• State of M.P. vs. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 773 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that ossification tests are not the sole criterion for determining age when other documents are available.
• Ram Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – 2021 CriLJ 2805- Supreme Court of India: The Court held that ossification tests are not the sole criterion of age determination.

On the credibility of documents:

• Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2019) 12 SCC 370 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that matriculation certificates are not always credible if other evidence contradicts them.
• Parag Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC 744 – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the JJ Act should not be used to shelter those who commit heinous crimes.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
• Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
• Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007
• Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
• Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
• Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. [CITATION]: The Court followed this precedent, stating that matriculation certificates are reliable unless proven fabricated.
• Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal [CITATION]: The Court used this to emphasize that credibility of documents depends on the facts of each case, but in the present case, the matriculation certificate was deemed credible.
• Arnit Das v. State of Bihar [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged the need for a liberal approach in borderline cases but found the present case to be clear.
• Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand [CITATION]: The Court agreed that medical evidence is not conclusive, and the ossification test was not necessary in this case.
• Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that unlike in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, there was no contradictory evidence to the matriculation certificate.
• Parag Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged that the JJ Act should not shelter those who commit heinous crimes but found that the evidence supported Nishant’s claim of juvenility.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Matriculation Certificate: The court placed significant weight on the matriculation certificate issued by the concerned board, which indicated Nishant’s date of birth as 25.09.2004. This document was considered a reliable piece of evidence under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015.
• Consistency of Records: The court noted that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate was consistent with the date recorded in the school admission records and the letter from the Intermediate Education Council, UP.
• Absence of Contradictory Evidence: Unlike in cases like Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, the court found no contradictory evidence to challenge the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
• Presumption of Juvenility: The court emphasized that Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, raises a presumption of juvenility, which can only be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary.
• Deeming Provision: The court highlighted the deeming provision in sub-section (3) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, which gives finality to the age recorded by the JJ Board or the Committee.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the JJ Board was correct in declaring the respondent no.2-Nishant as a juvenile delinquent based on the matriculation certificate?

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the order of the JJ Board and the Sessions Court?

Issue 3: Whether the discrepancies in other school records should outweigh the matriculation certificate for the determination of age?

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the evidence presented and the relevant legal provisions. The court emphasized that:

• The matriculation certificate is a primary document under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, and should be given due weight unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
• The purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, is to protect juveniles, and the benefit of the Act should be given to those who are genuinely minors.
• While the court acknowledged the discrepancies in other school records, it found that these discrepancies were not sufficient to outweigh the consistency and reliability of the matriculation certificate and the letter from the Intermediate Education Council, UP.
• The court also considered the legislative intent behind the JJ Act, 2015, which is to ensure that juveniles are not treated as adults in the criminal justice system.
• The court also noted that the deeming provision in sub-section (3) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, gives finality to the age recorded by the JJ Board or the Committee.

The court rejected the argument that the ossification test was necessary, stating that such a test is only required when other primary documents are not available. The court also rejected the argument that the signatures on the school admission forms were suspicious, stating that this was not sufficient to discredit the matriculation certificate.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.”
• “In the absence of there being any rebuttal evidence brought on record by the appellant herein, even if the documents seeking admission to class 1 and class 8 are discredited or eschewed, the fact remains that the mark-sheet pertaining to the matriculation of Nishant, issued by the concerned Board, gives rise to a presumption that Nishant was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident i.e.05.05.2020.”
• “The deeming provision in sub-section (3) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 is also significant inasmuch as the controversy or the doubt regarding the age of the child brought before the Committee or the JJ Board is sought to be set at rest at the level of the JJ Board or the Committee itself.”

Key Takeaways

• Matriculation Certificate: The judgment reinforces that matriculation certificates are primary documents for determining the age of a juvenile under the JJ Act, 2015.
• Presumption of Juvenility: The court emphasized the presumption of juvenility under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, which must be given due weight.
• Consistency of Records: The court highlighted the importance of consistent records in determining age and stated that the matriculation certificate was consistent with other school records.
• Rebuttal Evidence: The judgment clarifies that the presumption of juvenility can only be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary.
• Deeming Provision: The deeming provision in sub-section (3) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, gives finality to the age recorded by the JJ Board or the Committee.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment will serve as a precedent for future cases involving the determination of juvenility under the JJ Act, 2015.
• It reinforces the importance of the matriculation certificate as a primary document for age determination.
• It provides clarity on the application of Section 94 of the JJ Act,2015, and the presumption of juvenility.
• It will guide lower courts in their approach to determining age in cases involving juveniles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) underscores the importance of the matriculation certificate as a primary document for determining the age of a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court upheld the decision of the JJ Board, the Sessions Court, and the High Court, emphasizing the presumption of juvenility and the need for consistent and reliable evidence. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, and serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving the determination of juvenility. The Court’s emphasis on the deeming provision in sub-section (3) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, also highlights the finality of the age recorded by the JJ Board or the Committee. This case reiterates the legislative intent behind the JJ Act, 2015, which is to protect the rights of juveniles and ensure they are not treated as adults in the criminal justice system.