LexRAM VIJAY SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2021 FEBRUARY 25, 2021
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. [2021] 1 S.C.R. 566 566 RAM VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2021 FEBRUARY 25, 2021 [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HEMANT GUPTA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Importance/reliability of ossification test – When a person is around 18 years of age, the ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law – However, when a person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age – When the ossification test cannot yield trustworthy and reliable results, such test cannot be made a basis to determine the age of the person concerned on the date of incident – Therefore, in the instant case, in the absence of any reliable trustworthy medical evidence to find out age of the appellant, the ossification test conducted in year 2020 when the appellant was 55 years of age cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.1982. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Determination of age – As per the Scheme of the Act, when it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person, that the said person is a child, the Board or Committee shall record observations stating the age of the Child as nearly as may be without waiting for further confirmation of the age – Therefore, the first attempt to determine the age is by assessing the physical appearance of the person when brought before the Board or the Committee – It is only in case of doubt, the process of age determination by seeking evidence becomes necessary – At that stage, when a person is around 18 years of age, the ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Conviction of appellant under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC – Appellant raised plea of juvenility – In support thereof, he relied on an order passed by High Court in 1982 granting bail to him on the basis of report of radiologist that the age of appellant at the time of incident was A B C D E F G H 567 between 15-1/2-17-1/2 years – Plea of juvenility raised before this court on the basis of said order of High Court – Held: The medical report in support of the bail order is not available – Such order granting bail cannot be conclusive determination of age of the appellant – It was an interim order of bail pending trial but in the absence of a medical report, it cannot be conclusively held that the appellant was juvenile on the date of the incident – Apart from that an application was submitted by the appellant himself for obtaining an Arms Licence prior to the date of the incident – In such application, he had given his date of birth as 30.12.1961 which made him 21 years of age on the date of the incident i.e. 20.7.1982 – The Court is not precluded from taking into consideration any other relevant and trustworthy material to determine the age as all the three eventualities mentioned in sub-section (2) of s.94 of the Act are either not available or are not found to be reliable and trustworthy – Since there was such document signed by the appellant much before the date of occurrence, therefore, he cannot be treated to be juvenile on the date of incident. Juvenile Justice: Plea of juvenility – Held: Can be raised at any stage even after finality of the proceedings before Supreme Court. Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – The oral evidence along with the statement of the doctor (PW-4) suggested that the injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by a blunt weapon – The blunt weapon as deposed by the eyewitness was the lathi in the hands of the appellant – Lathi may be common article with the villagers but the use of lathi as a weapon of offence is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below – As per the postmortem report, the deceased suffered multiple injuries which showed attack by more than one person – The nature of injuries also showed that hard and blunt object as well as sharp edged weapons were used to inflict injuries – It was the appellant who was armed with Lathi whereas the other convicted accused was armed with Axe – The incised wound suffered by the deceased was possible with an Axe – As per the report, there were sufficient number of injuries caused by an Axe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.