RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 18-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 502
502
RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1240 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– Claim of juvenility – Determination of age – Matriculation
Certificate – Respondent no.2-accused along with others was alleged
to have attacked the appellant and his family causing death of his
father and uncle – Application filed by respondent no.2, through
his mother/natural guardian before the Juvenile Justice Board for
declaring the respondent no.2 as a juvenile delinquent – Appellant
sought medical test of respondent no.2 to ascertain his true age,
application dismissed – Respondent no.2 was declared a juvenile
delinquent – Appellant’s appeal before District and Sessions Judge
was dismissed – Criminal Revision before the High Court was also
rejected – On appeal, held: Respondent no.2’s date of birth as
recorded in the school admission records, as well as the matriculation
certificate are the same i.e., 25.09.2004 – Date of the incident was
05.05.2020 – The mark-sheet pertaining to the matriculation of
respondent no.2, issued by the concerned Board, gives rise to a
presumption that he was less than 16 years of age on the date of
incident – Moreover, the letter dtd. 22.07.20 of the Administrative
Officer, Regional Office, Intermediate Education Council, UP,
(Meerut) also authenticated the date of birth of respondent no.2 as
25.09.2004 – No contra evidence to the documents produced by
respondent no.2 have been produced by the appellant – Order of
the High Court sustaining the judgement of the District & Sessions
Court as well as of the JJ Board, not differed from – Evidence Act,
1872 – s.35 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,
2007 – r.12 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147-149, 323, 307, 302, 34.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– Evidence Act, 1872 – s.35 – Application filed for declaration that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
respondent no.2 was a juvenile delinquent was supported with
Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet of the High School issued by the
concerned Board stating that the date of birth of respondent no.2
was 25.09.2004 – Admission forms were relied upon to prove that
the respondent’s date of birth mentioned in the said documents are
in consonance with the date of birth indicated in the matriculation
certificate – Plea of appellant that the genuineness of the said
documents was in grave doubt and thus could not have been relied
upon in support of claim of juvenility – Held: In the instant case,
admittedly, there is no other document indicating the date of birth
of the respondent no.2 contrary to what has been indicated in the
matriculation certificate – There is no discrepancy in the date of
birth.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– Determination of age – Evidence – School records – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.35 – Held: 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 s.35 inasmuch as any
public or official document maintained in the discharge of official
duty would have greater credibility than private documents – Any
document in consonance with public documents, such as
matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ
Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as
per s.35 and other provisions.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– ss.94, 9(2), (3) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 – ss.7A, 49 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Determination of age – Difference
in the procedure – Discussed.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– Claim of juvenility – Held: A claim of juvenility may be raised at
any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after final disposal of the
case – A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground
for rejection of such claim – It can also be raised for the first time
before Supreme Court – A hyper-technical approach should not be
adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in
support of the plea that he was a juvenile – If two views are possible
RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI v. STATE OF UTTAR P

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