Age recorded by Juvenile Justice Board or Committee to be age of person so brought before it shall be deemed to be true age of such person, for purpose of Juvenile Justice Act: SC

Read Judgment: Rishipal Singh Solanki V. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, November 22,2021: The Supreme Court has held that the presumption drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board or Committee regarding juvenility of the age of the child brought before them, as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, cannot be doubted in absence of any reasonable evidence.   

A Division Bench of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna therefore observed that in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, even if the documents seeking admission to class 1 and class 8 are discredited or eschewed, the fact remains that the mark-sheet pertaining to the matriculation of Nishant (accused), issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination U.P, gives rise to a presumption that accused was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident.  

The observation came pursuant to a plea challenging an order whereby the Allahabad High Court had sustaining the judgment of District & Sessions Court as well as of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the accused a juvenile delinquent by simply relying on the matriculation certificate, irrespective of other material discrepancies in the oral testimony of the witnesses or other documents. 

Going by the background of the case, an FIR was lodged stating that Nishu (second respondent) S/o Bhushan and other accused were carrying a battle-axe, lathi and cane-knives and attacked Rishipal Singh (complainant/appellant) and the members of his family. However, an application was filed on behalf of Nishant before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board), seeking a declaration that Nishu was a juvenile delinquent on the date of commission of the alleged offences. In support of the said application, Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet of the High School issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination U.P, was produced. 

The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, allowed the said application arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2020 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC and declared the accused – Nishant Solanki @ Nishu as a juvenile delinquent. This was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, POCSO Act and upheld by the High Court as well. Hence, present appeal. 

After considering the arguments, the Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 raises a presumption regarding juvenility of the age of the child brought before the JJ board or the Committee. But in case the Board or Committee has reasonable grounds for doubt about the person brought before it is a child or not, it can undertake the process of determination of age by seeking evidence. 

Thus, in the initial stage a presumption that the child brought before the Committee or the JJ Board is a juvenile has to be drawn by the said authorities, and the said presumption has to be drawn on observation of the child, added the Court. 

However, the said presumption may not be drawn when the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding the person brought before it is a child or not. 

The Top Court therefore draws some principles on the basis of catena of judgments of this Court, which are as under mentioned:

1. An application claiming juvenility could be made either before the Court or the JJ Board.

2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with section 9(2) so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.

3. When an application claiming juvenility is made u/s 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a Court, then the procedure contemplated u/s 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. 

4. When a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court.

5. The presumption of juvenility is not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side.

6. 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. And if two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. 

7. 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 Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents.

8. Any document which is 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 the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and concluded that the age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015 be deemed to be the true age of the person.