SURESH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: DEVI SINGH

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 31-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 305 : 2025 INSC 918
Suresh 
v. 
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 
R1: State of Uttar Pradesh 
R2: Devi Singh
(Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2018)
01 August 2025
[Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Courts below erred in declaring the Respondent No.2 
as a ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 
Children) Act, 2000, on the date of the incident.
Headnotes†
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 
2007 – r.12 – Procedure to be followed in determination of 
Age – FIR was filed against Respondent No.2 and his father 
u/ss.452 and 302, IPC – Respondent No.2 pleaded juvenility – 
Trial Court declared the Respondent No.2 to be a ‘juvenile’ 
on the date of the incident – Challenged by appellant – Order 
upheld by High Court – Interference with:
Held: r.12(3)(a) lays down the sequential list of certificates to 
be examined and the order thereof – In the present case, as no 
‘matriculation or equivalent certificates’ were available u/r.12(3)
(a)(i), thus u/r.12(3)(a)(ii), ‘date of birth certificate from the school 
(other than a play school) first attended’ was attracted and the 
certificate issued by the first attended school was taken as 
conclusive proof of date of birth – However, the deposition of the 
School’s Headmaster to the effect that the birth-date was noted 
on an oral representation by Respondent No.2’s father, makes the 
said certificate unreliable – Other school certificates were issued 
following this and therefore, are not correct, in the face of conflicting 
public records and public documents as also the Medical Report 
which state to the contrary – Thus, the certificate issued by the first 
attended school could not have been taken as conclusive proof 
of date of birth of Respondent No.2, discarding Form (A) u/r.2 of 
* Author
306
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Rules under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947; the entry in the 
Voters’ List for the Legislative Assembly of the year 2012, and; the 
Medical Report – Respondent No.2 was not a ‘juvenile’ on the date 
of the incident – Declaration of Respondent No.2 as a ‘juvenile’ was 
improper – Impugned order of the High Court as well as the order 
of the Trial Court holding the Respondent No.2 to be a ‘juvenile’, 
set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.35, 74. [Paras 23-26]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.35, 74 – Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Certificate issued by the 
first attended school was taken as conclusive proof of date 
of birth of the Respondent No.2-accused and he was held a 
‘juvenile’ on the date of the incident:
Held: The first attended school is not a Government School and 
thus, the records maintained by the said School would not be 
‘public documents’ – Moreover, the Headmaster/Principal of such 
School cannot be said to be a ‘public servant’ for the purposes of 
the Evidence Act – Thus, neither the Headmaster/Principal of the 
first attended school nor its records would qualify as ‘public servant’ 
or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’ respectively. [Paras 21, 22]
Case Law Cited
Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan [2012] 5 SCR 237 : (2012) 5 
SCC 201 – relied on.
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 1 : (1988) 
Supp. SCC 604 – referred to.
List of Acts
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; Juvenile 
Justice (Care and Protection. of Children) Rules, 2007; Penal Code, 
1860; Evidence Act, 1872; UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
List of Keywords
Juvenile; Juvenility; Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
of Children) Rules, 2007; Determination of Age; Juvenility not 
established; First attended school; School transfer certificate;  
Birth-date entry; Birth-date noted as per an oral representation; Date 
of birth certificate; Equivalent certificates; Other school certificates; 
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
307
Suresh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Conflicting public records and public documents; Conclusive proof 
of date of birth; Family Register; Entry in the Voters’ List for the 
Legislative Assembly; Gram Panchayat; Not a ‘juvenile’ on the 
date of the incident; Declaration as ‘juvenile’ improper; Public 
servant; Public record; Public documents; First attended school 
not a Government School; Headmaster/Principal of first attended 
school not

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