Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court in one of the current judgements highlighted the basic principles sought to criminalise the conduct of the appearing juvenile under the JJ Act, 2015.
The Bench consisted of Justice BV Nagarathna and DY Chandrachud, who heard the matter of a juvenile held to be a “juvenile delinquent” which was challenged in the present Court.
Brief Facts
In the said facts, the accused and others were held guilty of attacking the house of the appellant and his family, which led to the death of the appellant’s father and uncle. The accused through his mother, who was briefed as his natural guardian, filed a plea before the JJ Board pleading to be declared as a juvenile delinquent. Further, the Board rejected the plea seeking medical examination of the main accused to inform of his true age, burdened by which the appellant filed a CRP before the District and Sessions Judge. As the application was pending before the High Court, the accused was held as ‘’juvenile delinquent’’ by the JJ Board.
As per the due process, the appellant filed an appeal with the District and Sessions Judge under Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2015 targeting the above statement which was then rejected by the said Court. Duly, an appeal was filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the dismissal but which was set aside.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court.
Observation of the SC
It was argued by the Counsel of the Appellant that the charges framed against the accused were of grave nature (Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the IPC) and that there was an error in the said order of the JJ Board and High Court, which approved the application for declaring him as a juvenile delinquent.
He also contended that there were many irregularities in the submission of evidence and that the JJ Board did not get right the proper meaning of the legislative intent behind section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, arguing that matriculation certificate as shown by the accused to the Board can by no means be a conclusive document for knowing the age of the juvenile which is irrespective of other errors in the oral testimony of the witnesses or the other documents being produced.
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 talks about the presumption of juvenility in the cases which are brought before the Committee or Board and in failure of that presumption the numerous ways by which the Board can ascertain the age of the party i.e. through by calling the matriculation certificate, birth certificate, ossification test.
The Court propounding in its judgement various issues relating to the above matter observed these main issues:
1) Claim for juvenility might be raised at any point of the criminal proceeding, even after the final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be ground for the rejection of such a claim.
2) An application claiming juvenility can be presented either before the Court or the Board.
3) When an application claiming juvenility is made under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of the offence is pending before the Court, then the procedure under Section 94 would be applied. The age shall be determined as per the said procedure, in case of doubt and the age so ascertained by the Board shall be the true age of the person in question.
4) The presumption of juvenility might be raised by submitting the documents mentioned under Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015.
However, the presumption is not conclusive proof of the age of the juvenile provided that there is enough evidence to counter it.
5) The standard of proof required in an inquiry proceeding conducted by the respective court in order to determine the age of the accused shall be conclusive so as to not further investigate. But when the age is to be recorded under Section 94 via the Board, it shall be done in accordance with the proper evidence and procedure.
6) if there are simultaneously two views on the evidence provided, the Court shall lean in the favour of holding the accused juvenile in borderline cases.
7) When the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
8) The documents mentioned under Section 94 for declaring the age of the juvenile has to be proper and should come within the permit of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and other provisions.
9) The Ossification test cannot be the only criterion for determining the age of a juvenile. Such evidence is just a useful resulting factor in guiding, in absence of documents.
The Bench noted, besides the above points, that in the present case, there is no evidence to the contrary to the documents provided by the accused, hence the Bench refused to differ from the order of the High Court.
And hence, it rejected the application of the appellant.
86540
103860
630
114
59824