PAWAN KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 21-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 261 : 2023 INSC 1012
261
CASE DETAILS
PAWAN KUMAR
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3548 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA,JJ]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The question which arise for determination is 
whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of commission of oﬀ ence.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 
– r. 12(3)(b) – Beneﬁ t of juvenility – Procedure to be followed in 
determination of age – When exact assessment of the age cannot be done: 
Held: Age of a juvenile has to be determined on the basis of the 
date of the alleged commission of the crime – In a case of juvenility 
where two views are possible, a liberal approach should be undertaken – 
Furthermore, as per sub-rule (3)(b) of r. 12, in the case exact assessment 
of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, the committee for 
the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary give 
beneﬁ t to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side 
within the margin of one year – On facts, as regards the appellant involved 
in a crime u/s. 302, 307/34 IPC there were some conﬂ icting aspects as to 
the age of the appellant, the margin of age was so thin – As per r. 12, the 
school certiﬁ cates are given more importance than a Panchayat Register, 
as such the School leaving certiﬁ cate of the ﬁ rst school attended by the 
appellant would be a certiﬁ cate liable to be considered and is a valid 
proof of evidence for determination of the age of the appellant, whereby 
his age was less than 16 years when the oﬀ ence was committed – Second 
certiﬁ cate is the medical report, Bone Ossiﬁ cation Test which shows that 
he was about 19 years of age, which is not entirely accurate – Even if the 
medical report which shows the age of the appellant as 19 years is taken 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
to be correct even then an exact assessment of age was not possible – 
Considering the conﬂ icting reports and documents, as per sub rule 3(b) 
of r. 12, the Court ought to have given the appellant a beneﬁ t of one year 
– Thus, the report of the Additional Sessions Judge is accepted and it is 
declared that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the commission 
of crime – Since the appellant has been detained beyond the maximum 
period, he is directed to be released forthwith – Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – ss. 15, 16. [Para 26, 30-34]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another [2005] 1 Scr 1019 
: (2005) 3 SCC 551; Satya Deo alias Bhoorey v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
[2020] 12 SCR 128 : (2020) 10 SCC 555; Hariram v. State of Rajasthan and 
Another [2009] 7 SCR 623 : (2009) 13 SCC 211; Shah Nawaz v. State of 
Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 13 SCC 751: [2011] 9 SCR 859; Vinod 
Katara v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1204; Arnit Das v. State of 
Bihar [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 69 : (2000) 5 SCC 488; Mukarrab and Others 
v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2016] 8 SCR 557 : (2017) 2 SCC 210; Ashwani 
Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2012] 10 SCR 540 : (2012) 9 
SCC 750; Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 
602 – referred to. 
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
3548 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2019 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLA No.106 of 2000.
Appearances:
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Rishad Murtaza, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Ardhendumouli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Rohit K. Singh, Aviral 
Saxena, Pritam Bishwas, Ashish Madan, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
263
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this Court has been convicted by the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.85 of 1996 for oﬀ ences under 
Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 
has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 and rigorous 
imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307/34 with default stipulations. 
The conviction and sentence of the appellant was upheld in appeal by the 
High Court, in its order dated 07.05.2019. 
3. There were four accused in the case, which were Gaya Prasad Mishra, 
Gulab Chandra, Pawan Kumar and Babadeen. The accused Babadeen passed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.