OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 13-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.CR. 237 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.651 of 2012) 
APRIL 13, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 - Offence of rape - Plea of juvenility by accused -
Determination of age of the accused - Medical evidence -
C 
Appreciation of- 13~ year old girl allegedly subjected to rape 
by accused-respondent no.2 and a co-accused- Respondent 
no. 2 claimed to be a juvenile - Both trial court and High Court 
could not record a conclusive finding of fact that respondent 
no.2 was a juvenile on the date of the incident, yet granted 
0 
him benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act to refer him for trial to 
a juvenile court - On appeal by father of the victim, held: The 
age of accused-respondent no.2 could not be proved merely 
on the basis of school record as the courts below inspite of 
its scrutiny could not record a finding of fact that the accused, 
E 
in fact, was a minor on the date of the incident - In such a 
situation when the school record itself is riot free from 
ambiguity, medical opinion cannot be allowed to be 
overlooked or treated to be of no consequence - Opinion of 
medical experts based on x-ray and ossification test of the 
F 
accused will have to be given precedence over the shaky 
evidence based on school records and a plea of 
circumstantial inference based on a story set up by the father 
of the accused - While the medical expert who conducted the 
ossification test opined that accused was 19 years of age on 
G 
the date of commission of the offence, another medical expert 
opined on the basis of x-ray films that age of the accused was 
above 18 years and below 20 years - The doctor's estimation 
of age although is not a sturdy substance for proof as it is only 
237 
H 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A an opinion, such opinion based on scientific medical test like 
ossification and radiological examination will have to be 
treated as a strong evidence having corroborative value while 
determining the age of the alleged juvenile accused - The 
situation, however, would be different if the academic records 
B are alleged to have been withheld deliberately to hide the age 
of the alleged juvenile and the authenticity of the medical 
evidence is under challenge at the instance of the prosecution 
- In that event, whether the medical evidence should be relied 
upon or not will depend on the value of the evidence led by 
c the contesting parties - Respondent no. 2 and his father failed 
to prove that respondent no. 2 was a minor at the time of 
commission of offence - Although the Juvenile Justice Act 
by itself is a piece of benevolent legislation, protection under 
the same cannot be made available to an accused who in fact 
0 
is not a juvenile but seeks shelter merely by using it as a 
protective umbrella or statutory shield - Consequently, 
accused-respondent no. 2 directed to be sent for trial before 
the court of competent jurisdiction wherein the trial is pending 
and not to the Juvenile Court as pleaded by him - Medical 
E Jurisprudence. 
Appellant is the father of a 131h year old girl who was 
allegedly subjected to rape by the accused-Respondent 
No.2. Respondent no.2 was allowed to avail the benefit 
of protection under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
F of Children) Act 2000, although the courts below could 
not record a finding that he, in fact, was a juvenile on the 
date of incident. 
The questions inter alia which arose for 
G consideration in the instant appeal were:- (i) Whether the 
respondent/accused herein who is alleged to have 
committed an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and 
other allied sections along with a co-accused who 
already stands convicted for the offence under Section 
H 376 IPC, can be allowed to avail the benefit of protection 
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 239 
to a juvenile in order to refer him for trial to a juvenile 
A 
court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Act, 2000 although the trial court and the High 
Court could not record a conclusive finding of fact that 
the respondent-accused was below the age of 18 years 
on the date of the incident; (ii) Whether the principle and 
B 
benefit of 'benevolent legislation' relating to Juvenile 
Justice Act could be applied in cases where two views 
regarding determination of the age of child/accused was 
possible and the so-called child could n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.