1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1240 OF 2021

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.6223 OF 2021)

RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI ……..APPELLANT(S)

VS.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal

against the impugned order dated 12.03.2021

passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.430 of 2021

whereby the High Court rejected the aforesaid

criminal revision filed against the judgment and

order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO

Act (Exclusive Court), Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh,

dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2020. The

said criminal appeal was filed against the order

dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Principal

2

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat

allowing the Miscellaneous Case No.16 of 2020

arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2020 under

sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’),

Police Station at Singhawali Ahir, District

Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, and declaring the accused

– Nishant Solanki @ Nishu (respondent no.2

herein) as a juvenile delinquent.

2.Succinctly stated, the facts are that, in an

incident that occurred on 05.05.2020 at around

4:00 pm, inter alia, respondent no.2 – Nishant

Solanki @ Nishu (hereinafter referred to as

‘Nishant’) along with other accused are alleged

to have attacked upon the appellant and his

family causing serious injuries as well as death

of appellant’s father Bhopal Singh, who was

declared ‘brought dead’ by the doctor on the same

day i.e. 05.05.2020 and his uncle Kaluram, who

died on 09.05.2020 due to grievous injuries

sustained by him in the aforesaid incident.

3.Nishant, through his mother/natural

guardian-respondent no.3 herein, filed an

3

application being Miscellaneous Case No.16/2020

before the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘JJ Board’), Baghpat, praying

therein that the respondent no.2/accused viz.,

Nishant, be declared as a juvenile delinquent.

Evidence was let in on the said application

through respondent no.3 who is the mother and

natural guardian of Nishant. On coming to know

about the same, the appellant herein entered

appearance in the said proceeding through his

counsel and filed an application dated 20.07.2020

under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking

permission of the JJ Board to cross-examine

respondent no.3. The appellant herein was

permitted to do so on 22.07.2020, on which date

the application was posted for further cross-

examination of the mother of Nishant. On the said

date, respondent no.3 was further cross-examined

by the appellant.

4.Another witness, Manoj Kumar, Principal,

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Higher Secondary School,

Shajarpur, Kaidna, District Baghpat, was also

4

examined as DW-2 on 10.08.2020 and subsequently,

Surendra Kumar Saini, Principal, Sarvoday Public

School, Khindora, District Baghpat, was examined

as DW-3.

5.The police also filed a charge-sheet under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of

the IPC against all the accused including

respondent no.2 – Nishant on 22.07.2020.

6.In the said proceedings, an application was

filed on 09.09.2020 before the JJ Board for

medical test of respondent no.2 Nishant to

ascertain his actual and true age. By order dated

14.09.2020, the said application was dismissed

and the matter was ordered to be posted on

23.09.2020 for hearing on the issue of

determination of age of the respondent no.2 –

Nishant.

7.Being aggrieved by the rejection of the

application dated 09.09.2020 seeking medical test

of respondent no.2 - Nishant, the appellant

herein filed a criminal revision before the

5

District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat and an

application being Transfer Application (Criminal)

No.158/2020 before the High Court praying, inter

alia, for the transfer of proceedings in

Miscellaneous Case No.16/2020 pending before the

JJ Board, Baghpat, to some other JJ Board of the

State.

8.During the pendency of the aforesaid

proceedings before the High Court, the JJ Board,

Baghpat vide order dated 11.11.2020 allowed the

application being Misc. Case No.16/2020 filed by

respondent no.3 mother of Nishant and declared

Nishant as a juvenile delinquent. Assailing the

said order, the appellant filed an appeal being

Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2020 under section 101

of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘JJ Act, 2015’) before the District and

Sessions Judge, Baghpat. The said Court dismissed

the said appeal by its judgment dated 04.01.2021

against which the appellant filed a Criminal

Revision No.430 of 2021 before the High Court.

The said criminal revision was also rejected by

6

the High Court vide impugned order dated

12.03.2021. Being aggrieved of the same, the

appellant has filed the present appeal by special

leave before this Court.

9.We have heard Mr. Anupam Dwivedi, learned

counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sharan Thakur,

learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondent – State of Uttar Pradesh, and

Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, learned counsel for

respondent nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

10.Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the

appellant contended that respondent no.2 has been

accused of committing grave offences under

sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of

the IPC along with other co-accused, but

respondent no.2 has filed an application claiming

juvenility and the same has been allowed

erroneously by the JJ Board at Baghpat which

order has been sustained by the appellate court

as well as the High Court. It was contended that

there are contradictions in the evidence of the

witnesses examined on behalf of the accused-

7

respondent no.2, particularly, his mother with

regard to his date of birth which is stated to be

25.09.2004 but the same has not been established

in accordance with law. The School Admission Form

(Annexure P-11) was produced as Ex.A-8 to show

that the same was signed by respondent no.2

Nishant when he was purportedly four years of

age. Ex.A-9 (Annexure P-12) is stated to be a

document signed by respondent no.2 Nishant when

he was twelve years of age. He submitted that the

signatures on both these documents are identical.

Hence, the genuineness of the said documents is

in grave doubt and the same could not have been

relied upon in support of the claim of juvenility

made by respondent no.2 herein.

11.In Ex.A-8, our attention was drawn to Column

No.15 requiring the Aadhaar number of the student

to be filled, to contend that the said form is

said to have been submitted on 02.07.2009 seeking

admission of respondent no.2. That in July 2001

the requirement of furnishing UID/Aadhaar number

could not arise at all as it was issued for the

first time to a resident of Nandurbar,

8

Maharashtra only on 29.09.2010. It was urged that

Ex.A-8 (Annexure P-11) is a got up document in

order to misrepresent the age of respondent no.2

and thereby claim the benefit of juvenility. It

was further contended that if in the year 2009,

respondent no.2 sought admission to the Class 1

when he was less than five years of age, then,

after a period of five years only, he could not

have sought admission to Class 8. There is no

explanation as to how he could have sought

admission to Class 8 only after five years of

seeking admission to Class 1. It was also

submitted that DW-3, Principal of the primary

school during his cross-examination admitted that

the signature of Nishant on the admission forms

of class 1 and class 8 are identical. Hence it

was contended that it is doubtful as to how an

infant, who was aged about four years, (if really

the date of birth of respondent no.2 was

25.09.2004,) could have signed his name on the

school admission form when he sought admission to

class 1. It was contended that such a signature

is forged as no child who is four years of age

would have been able to sign his name on the

9

school admission form and secondly, could not

have also sought admission to class 1 at that

age.

12. It was contended that the JJ Board has not

appreciated the legislative intent behind section

94 of the JJ Act, 2015 by declaring that

matriculation certificate is a conclusive

document for determining the age of the juvenile

irrespective of other material discrepancies in

the oral testimony of the witnesses or other

documents being produced. In support of the said

submissions, reliance was placed on Parag Bhati

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2016) 12 SCC 744;

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Anr. – (2019) 12 SCC 370; and Abuzar Hossain vs.

State of West Bengal – (2012) 10 SCC 489.

13.It was further contended that in the

aforesaid cases, the claim of juvenility of the

accused was rejected due to discrepancies in the

evidence, notwithstanding the fact that as per

the matriculation certificate issued to the

accused therein, they were juveniles. In other

10

words, it was contended that the age shown in the

matriculation certificate cannot be accepted on

its face value if there is other evidence which

contradicts the same. It was hence contended that

the impugned order of the High Court, judgment of

the appellate court and order passed by the JJ

Board, Baghpat, may be set aside and the

application filed on behalf of the respondent

no.2-Nishant may be dismissed.

14. Mr. Sharan Thakur, learned additional

Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh,

supported the contentions of learned counsel for

the appellant and submitted that the

matriculation certificate relied upon by

respondent no.2 cannot be accepted as the

accompanying document, though the age of Nishant

indicated in the matriculation certificate

coincides with the age indicated in Ex-A8 and A9.

It was contended that these documents cannot be

accepted on their face value as the said exhibits

could not have borne the signature of Nishant.

They are also not in consonance with the age at

which Nishant would have been admitted to school

11

and completed his matriculation. Therefore, it

was contended that the orders impugned namely,

the order of the High Court as well as the orders

of the learned District Judge and the JJ Board

may be set aside.

15.Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, learned counsel for

respondent nos.2 and 3, contended that Nishant

was born on 25.09.2004 and on the date of the

incident i.e.05.05.2020, he was a minor being

only 15 years and 8 months of age. That

initially, he studied in a private school in the

village and was admitted to class 1 in 2009; he

passed classes 6, 7, and 8 from Sarvoday Public

Junior High School, Village Khindoda, District

Baghpat and got a school transfer certificate on

31.03.2017 wherein his date of birth was shown as

25.09.2004; that Nishant joined Sardar Vallabh

Bhai Patel Higher Secondary School, Khanjarpur

Khaidar, District Baghpat, on 04.07.2017 and

completed his High School and cleared the Board

examination with 85% marks. The U.P. State Board

of Secondary Education issued a High School

Certificate on completion of Board Examination

12

for Class 10 showing his date of birth as

25.09.2004. Therefore, on the date of the

incident i.e.05.05.2020, respondent no.2 was a

juvenile and hence the JJ Board as well the High

Court have rightly appreciated the case of

respondent no.2-Nishant and allowed his

application claiming juvenility. It was contended

that the matriculation certificate or the

certificate issued by the Board conducting the

said examination (Annexure P-15) is sufficient

proof of the age of the juvenile as per the

requirements of JJ Act, 2015. Reliance was placed

on Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. –

(2012) 9 SCC 750, to contend that the

matriculation certificate is a document on which

full reliance could be placed for determination

of the age of the juvenile accused. Hence, there

is no merit in this appeal.

16. It was further submitted that the appellant

cannot seek ossification test of respondent no.2

for the purpose of determination of his age as

the same is not conclusive for the purpose of

determination of the age vide Babloo Pasi vs.

13

State of Jharkhand – (2008) 13 SCC 133 and State

of M.P. vs. Anoop Singh – (2015) 7 SCC 773.

17.It was urged that the appellant has not been

successful in negating the case of respondent

no.2 Nishant, who, being a juvenile on the date

of the incident is entitled to all protection

under the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015. It was

submitted that there is no merit in the appeal

and the same may be dismissed.

18.The JJ Act, 2015 is a sequel to the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JJ Act,

2000’) which has since been repealed. Under the

JJ Act, 2000, an amendment was made by Act 33 of

2006 with effect from 22.8.2006 under which

section 7A of was inserted which reads as under:

“7A. Procedure to be followed when claim

of juvenility is raised before any court.—

(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is

raised before any court or a court is of

the opinion that an accused person was a

juvenile on the date of commission of the

offence, the court shall make an inquiry,

take such evidence as may be necessary

(but not an affidavit) so as to determine

the age of such person, and shall record a

finding whether the person is a juvenile

14

or a child or not, stating his age as

nearly as may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be

raised before any court and it shall be

recognised at any stage, even after final

disposal of the case, and such claim shall

be determined in terms of the provisions

contained in this Act and the rules made

thereunder, even if the juvenile has

ceased to be so on or before the date of

commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to be a

juvenile on the date of commission of the

offence under sub-section (1), it shall

forward the juvenile to the Board for

passing appropriate orders and the

sentence, if any, passed by a court shall

be deemed to have no effect.”

Section 49 of the said Act reads as under:

“49. Presumption and determination of

age.-(1) Where it appears to a competent

authority that person brought before it

under any of the provisions of this Act

(otherwise than for the purpose of giving

evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the

competent authority shall make due

inquiry so as to the age of that person

and for that purpose shall take such

evidence as may be necessary (but not an

affidavit) and shall record a finding

whether the person is a juvenile or the

child or not, stating his age as nearly

as may be.

(2) No order of a competent authority

shall be deemed to have become invalid

merely by any subsequent proof that the

person in respect of whom the order has

been made is not a juvenile or the child,

and the age recorded by the competent

authority to be the age of person so

brought before it, shall for the purpose

of this Act, be deemed to be the true age

of that person.”

15

19.Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘JJ Rules, 2007’) prescribed

the procedures for determination of age. Rule 12

reads as under –

“12. Procedure to be followed in

determination of Age.

(1) In every case concerning a child or a

juvenile in conflict with law, the court

or the Board or as the case may be the

Committee referred to in Rule 19 of these

rules shall determine the age of such

juvenile or child or a juvenile in

conflict with law within a period of

thirty days from the date of making of the

application for that purpose.

(2) The Court or the Board or as the case

may be the Committee shall decide the

juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or

the child or as the case may be the

juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie

on the basis of physical appearance or

documents, if available, and send him to

the observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or

juvenile in conflict with law, the age

determination inquiry shall be conducted

by the court or the Board or, as the case

may be, the Committee by seeking evidence

by obtaining -

(a) (i) the matriculation or

equivalent certificates, if available;

and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate

from the school (other than a play

school) first attended; and in the

absence whereof;

16

(iii) the birth certificate given by a

corporation or a municipal authority

or a panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either

(i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a)

above, the medical opinion will be

sought from a duly constituted Medical

Board, which will declare the age of

the juvenile or child. In case exact

assessment of the age cannot be done,

the Court or the Board or, as the case

may be, the Committee, for the reasons

to be recorded by them, may, if

considered necessary, give benefit to

the child or juvenile by considering

his/her age on lower side within the

margin of one year.

and, while passing orders in such case

shall, after taking into consideration

such evidence as may be available, or the

medical opinion, as the case may be,

record a finding in respect of his age and

either of the evidence specified in any of

the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the

absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the

conclusive proof of the age as regards

such child or Ihe juvenile in conflict

with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the

juvenile in conflict with law is found to be

below 18 years on the date of offence, on the

basis of any of the conclusive proof specified

in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as

the case may be the Committee shall in writing

pass an order stating the age and declaring the

status of juvenility or otherwise, for the

purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy

of the order shall be given to such juvenile or

the person concerned.

(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or

otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of

section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these

rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by

the court or the Board after examining and

obtaining the certificate or any other

17

documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3)

of this rule.

(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall

also apply to those disposed of cases, where

the status of juvenility has not been

determined in accordance with the provisions

contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act,

requiring dispensation of the sentence under

the Act for passing appropriate order in the

interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.”

20.Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the

procedure to be followed in determination of age.

The juvenility of a person in conflict with law

had to be decided prima facie on the basis of

physical appearance, or documents, if available.

But an inquiry into the determination of age by

the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence

by obtaining : (i) the matriculation or

equivalent certificates, if available and in the

absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth

certificate from the school (other than a play

school) first attended; and in the absence

whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a

corporation or a municipal authority or a

panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i),

(ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could

be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board

18

to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It

was also provided that while determination was

being made, benefit could be given to the child

or juvenile by considering the age on lower side

within the margin of one year. If a juvenile in

conflict with law was found to be below 18 years,

an order had to be passed declaring the status of

the juvenility by the Court. The said procedure

was also applicable to dispose off cases where

the status of the juvenility had not been

determined in accordance with the Act and the

Rules made thereunder.

21.On repeal of JJ Act, 2000 and on the

enforcement of JJ Act, 2015, the procedure to be

followed when a claim of juvenility is raised

before any court, other than a Board is

stipulated under section 9(2)&(3). The same reads

as under –

“2) In case a person alleged to have

committed an offence claims before a court

other than a Board, that the person is a

child or was a child on the date of

commission of the offence, or if the court

itself is of the opinion that the person was

a child on the date of commission of the

offence, the said court shall make an

inquiry, take such evidence as may be

necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine

19

the age of such person, and shall record a

finding on the matter, stating the age of the

person as nearly as may be:

Provided that such a claim may be raised

before any court and it shall be recognised

at any stage, even after final disposal of

the case, and such a claim shall be

determined in accordance with the provisions

contained in this Act and the rules made

thereunder even if the person has ceased to

be a child on or before the date of

commencement of this Act.

(3) If the court finds that a person has

committed an offence and was a child on the

date of commission of such offence, it shall

forward the child to the Board for passing

appropriate orders and the sentence, if any,

passed by the court shall be deemed to have

no effect.”

There is no corresponding Rule to determine

juvenility akin to Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007.

22. On the other hand, under section 94 of the JJ

Act, 2015, a presumption is raised that when a

person is brought before the JJ Board or the

Child Welfare Committee (‘Committee’ for short)

(other than for the purpose of giving evidence)

and the said person is a child, the JJ Board or

the Committee shall record such observation

stating the age of the child as nearly as may be,

and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or

20

section 36, as the case may be, without waiting

for further confirmation of the age. But where

the said Board or the Committee has reasonable

grounds for doubt regarding whether the person

brought before it is a child or not, the JJ Board

or the Committee, as the case may be, shall

undertake the process of age determination by

seeking evidence by obtaining -

(i) the date of birth certificate from the

school, or the matriculation or equivalent

certificate from the concerned examination

Board, if available; and in the absence

thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a

corporation or a municipal authority or a

panchayat;

(iii)and only in the absence of (i) and (ii)

above, age shall be determined by an

ossification test or any other latest

medical age determination test conducted

on the orders of the Committee or the

Board.

Provided such age determination test

conducted on the order of the Committee or the

Board shall be completed within fifteen days from

the date of such order. The age recorded by the

21

Committee or the Board to be the age of person so

brought before it shall, for the purpose of the

Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

For immediate reference section 94 of JJ Act,

2015 is extracted as under:

“94. Presumption and determination of age.-

(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee

or the Board, based on the appearance of

the person brought before it under any of

the provisions of this Act (other than for

the purpose of giving evidence) that the

said person is a child, the Committee or

the Board shall record such observation

stating the age of the child as nearly as

may be and proceed with the inquiry under

section 14 or section 36, as the case may

be, without waiting for further

confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has

reasonable grounds for doubt regarding

whether the person brought before it is a

child or not, the Committee or the Board,

as the case may be, shall undertake the

process of age determination, by seeking

evidence by obtaining –

a) the date of birth certificate from the

school, or the matriculation or equivalent

certificate from the concerned examination

Board, if available; and in the absence

thereof;

b) the birth certificate given by a

corporation or a municipal authority or a

panchayat;

c) and only in the absence of (i) and

(ii) above, age shall be determined by an

ossification test or any other latest

medical age determination test conducted on

the orders of the Committee or the Board.

Provided such age determination test

conducted on the order of the Committee or

22

the Board shall be completed within fifteen

days from the date of such order.

(3) The age recorded by the Committee or

the Board to be the age of person so

brought before it shall, for the purpose of

this Act, be deemed to be the true age of

that person.

23.Under section 7A of JJ Act, 2000 which was

inserted by an amendment with effect from

22.08.2006, provision was made to claim

juvenility by contending that the accused person

was a juvenile on the date of commission of the

offence and in such a case, on the evidence taken

on record, a finding regarding the age of such

person had to be recorded by the court, other

than a JJ Board. The claim for juvenility could

be raised before any Court and at any stage, even

after the final disposal of a case and such claim

had to be determined in terms of the said Act and

the rules made thereunder. If the Court found a

person to be a juvenile on the date of commission

of offence under sub-section (1) of section 7A of

the JJ Act, 2000, it had to forward the juvenile

to the JJ Board for passing appropriate orders

and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court would

not have any effect. However, under the JJ Act,

23

2015, a provision corresponding to section 7A of

the JJ Act, 2000, is in the form of sub-section 2

of section 9 of the said Act, which has been

extracted above.

24.Further, unlike section 49 of JJ Act, 2000,

section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 provides for

presumption and determination of age if the

Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee has

reasonable grounds to doubt whether the person

brought before it is a child or not. It shall

undertake the process of determination of age by

seeking evidence such as:

(i) the date of birth certificate from the

school, or the matriculation or equivalent

certificate from the concerned examination Board,

if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation

or a municipal authority or a panchayat; and

(iii) only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above,

age shall be determined by an ossification test

or any other latest medical age determination

24

test conducted on the orders of the Committee or

the Board.

25.The difference in the procedure under the

two enactments could be discerned as under:

(i) As per JJ Act, 2015 in the absence of

requisite documents as mentioned in Sub-section

(2) of Section 94(a) and (b), there is provision

for determination of the age by an ossification

test or any other medical age related test to be

conducted on the orders of the Committee or the

JJ Board as per Section 94 of the said Act;

whereas, under Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007, in

the absence of relevant documents, a medical

opinion had to be sought from a duly constituted

Medical Board which would declare the age of the

juvenile or child.

(ii) With regard to the documents to be provided

as evidence, what was provided under Rule 12 of

the JJ Rules, 2007 has been provided under sub-

section 2 of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 as a

substantive provision.

25

(iii) Under Section 49 of the JJ Act, 2000,

where it appeared to a competent authority that a

person brought before it was a juvenile or a

child, then such authority could, after making an

inquiry and taking such evidence as was

necessary, record a finding as to the juvenility

of such person and state the age of such person

as nearly as may be. Sub-section (2) of Section

49 stated that no order of a competent authority

shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by

any subsequent proof that the person in respect

of whom the order had been made is not a juvenile

and the age recorded by the competent authority

to be the age of person so brought before it, for

the purpose of the Act, be deemed to be the true

age of that person.

26. But, under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015,

which also deals with presumption and

determination of age, the Committee or the JJ

Board has to record such observation stating the

age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed

with the inquiry without waiting for further

26

confirmation of the age. It is only when the

Committee or the JJ Board has reasonable grounds

for doubt regarding whether the person brought

before it is a child or not, it can undertake the

process of age determination, by seeking

evidence.

27.Sub-section (3) of Section 94 states that

the age recorded by the Committee or the JJ Board

to be the age of the persons so brought before it

shall, for the purpose of the Act, be deemed to

be the true age of that person. Thus, there is a

finality attached to the determination of the age

recorded and it is only in a case where

reasonable grounds exist for doubt as to whether

the person brought before the Committee or the

Board is a child or not, that a process of age

determination by seeking evidence has to be

undertaken.

28. The relevant decisions on the provisions

under consideration could be referred to at this

stage:

27

(a) In the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State

of Madhya Pradesh - (2012) 9 SCC 750 , this

Court opined that under Section 7A of JJ

Act, 2000 obligated the Court to make an

inquiry and not an investigation or trial

under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

Court stated its opinion in the following

words :

“34……..There may be situations where the

entry made in the matriculation or

equivalent certificates, date of birth

certificate from the school first

attended and even the birth certificate

given by a corporation or a municipal

authority or a panchayat may not be

correct. But court, Juvenile Justice

Board or a committee functioning under

the JJ Act is not expected to conduct

such a roving enquiry and to go behind

those certificates to examine the

correctness of those documents, kept

during the normal course of business.

Only in cases where those documents or

certificates are found to be fabricated

or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile

Justice Board or the committee need to

go for medical report for age

determination.”

(b) Reference could also be made to another

decision of this Court in the case of Abuzar

Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West

Bengal - (2012) 10 SCC 489, wherein it has

been summarized as under:

28

"39.1. A claim of juvenility may be

raised at any stage even after the

final disposal of the case. It may be

raised for the first time before this

Court as well after the final disposal

of the case. The delay in raising the

claim of juvenility cannot be a ground

for rejection of such claim. The claim

of juvenility can be raised in appeal

even if not pressed before the trial

Court and can be raised for the first

time before this Court though not

pressed before the trial Court and in

the appeal Court.

39.2. For making a claim with regard

to juvenility after conviction, the

claimant must produce some material

which may prima facie satisfy the

Court that an inquiry into the claim

of juvenility is necessary. Initial

burden has to be discharged by the

person who claims juvenility.

39.3. As to what materials would prima

facie satisfy the Court and/or ae

sufficient for discharging the initial

burden cannot be catalogued nor can it

be laid down as to what weight should

be given to a specific piece of

evidence which may be sufficient to

raise presumption of juvenility but

the documents referred to in Rules

12(3)(a) (i) to (iii) shall definitely

be sufficient for prima facie

satisfaction of the Court about the

age of the delinquent necessitating

further enquiry under Rule 12. The

statement recorded 22-10-2021 (Page 6

of 12) under Section 313 of the Code

is too tentative and may not by itself

be sufficient ordinarily to justify or

reject the claim of juvenility. The

credibility and/or acceptability of

the documents like the school leaving

certificate or the voters list, etc.

obtained after conviction would depend

on the facts and circumstances of each

case and no hard-and-fast rule can be

prescribed that they must he prima

facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar

29

Sheikh - (2009) 7 SCC 415 and Pawan -

(2009) 15 SCC 259, these documents

were not found prima facie credible

while in Jitendra Singh - (2010) 13

SCC 523 the documents viz., school

leaving certificate, marksheet and the

medical report were treated sufficient

for directing an inquiry and

verification of the appellant’s age.

If such documents, prima facie,

inspire confidence of the Court, the

Court may act upon such documents for

the purposes of Section 7-A and order

an enquiry for determination of the

age of the delinquent.

39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or

any of the parents or a sibling or a

relative in support of the claim of

juvenility raised for the first time

in appeal or revision or before this

Court during the pendency of the

matter or after disposal of the case

shall not be sufficient justifying an

enquiry to determine the age of such

person unless the circumstances of the

case are so glaring that satisfy the

judicial conscience of the Court to

order an enquiry into determination of

the age of the delinquent.

39.5. The Court where the plea of

juvenility is raised for the first

time should always be guided by the

objectives of the 2000 Act and be

alive to the position that the

beneficent and salutary provisions

contained in the 2000 Act are not

defeated by the hyper technical

approach and the persons who are

entitled to get benefits of the 2000

Act shall get such benefits. The

Courts should not be unnecessarily

influenced by any general impression

that in schools the parents/guardians

understate the age of their wards by

one or two years for future benefits

or that age determination by medical

examination is not very precise. The

matter should be considered prima

facie on the touchstone of

30

preponderance of probability. 39.6.

Claim of juvenility lacking in

credibility or frivolous claim of

juvenility or patently absurd or

inherently improbable claim of

juvenility must be rejected by the

Court at the threshold whenever

raised."

(c) In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar - (2000) 5

SCC 488, this Court observed that while

considering the question as to determination

of the age of an accused for the purpose of

ascertaining whether he is a juvenile or

not, a hyper-technical approach should not

be adopted while appreciating the evidence

adduced in support of the plea that he was a

juvenile and, if two views may be possible,

the Court should lean in favour of holding

the accused to be a juvenile in borderline

cases. This is because the Act being a

welfare legislation, Courts should be

zealous to see that a juvenile derives full

benefits of the provisions of the Act but at

the same time it is also imperative for the

Courts to ensure that the protection and

privileges under the Act are not misused by

31

unscrupulous persons to escape punishment

for having committed serious offences.

(d)In Jitendra Ram v. State of Jharkhand -

(2006) 9 SCC 428 , this Court has sounded a

note of caution on the earlier observations

made by it in the case of Bhola Bhagat &

others v. State of Bihar - (1997) 8 SCC

720, wherein it was observed that an

obligation has been cast on the Court that

where such a plea is raised having regard to

the beneficial nature of the socially

oriented legislation, the same should be

examined with great care. This Court

referring to its decision in Bhola Bhagat

(supra) observed as follows :

“20. …We are, however, of the opinion

that the same would not mean that a

person who is not entitled to the

benefit of the said Act would be dealt

with leniently only because such a plea

is raised. Each plea must be judged on

its own merit. Each case has to be

considered on the basis of the materials

brought on records.”

The aforesaid observations were made in the

context of what had been stated in Bhola

Bhagat vs. State of Bihar – (1997) 8 SCC 720

which is extracted as under:

32

“18. Before parting with this judgment,

we would like to reemphasis that when a

plea is raised on behalf of an accused

that he was a “child” within the meaning

of the definition of the expression

under the Act, it becomes obligatory for

the court, in case it entertains any

doubt about the age as claimed by the

accused, to hold an inquiry itself for

determination of the question of age of

the accused or cause an enquiry to be

held and seek a report regarding the

same, if necessary, by asking the

parties to lead evidence in that regard.

Keeping in view the beneficial nature of

the socially oriented legislation, it is

an obligation of the court where such a

plea is raised to examine that plea with

care and it cannot fold its hands and

without returning a positive finding

regarding that plea, deny the benefit of

the provisions of an accused. The court

must hold an enquiry and return a

finding regarding the age, one way or

the other.”

(e) Further, in Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and

another - (2010) 3 SCC 757 , this Court

considered a situation wherein the entry of

date of birth in the admission form of the

school records or transfer certificates did

not satisfy the condition laid down under

Section 35 of the Evidence Act, i.e., the

said entry was not in any public or official

register and was not made either by a public

servant, in the discharge of his official

33

duty or by any person in performance of a

duty specially enjoined by the law of the

country and therefore the said evidence was

not relevant for the purpose of determining

the age of the accused in the said case. In

the aforesaid case, this Court set aside the

order of the High Court in revision and

confirmed the order of the trial Court

holding that the accused therein was a

juvenile at the time of the commission of

the alleged offence.

(f) In Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand and

another - (2008) 13 SCC 133, this Court while

dealing with the provisions of JJ Act, 2000,

observed as under:

“22. it is well settled that it is

neither feasible nor desirable to lay

down an abstract formula to determine

the age of a person. The date of birth

is to be determined on the basis of

material on record and on appreciation

of evidence adduced by the parties. The

medical evidence as to the age of a

person, though a very useful guiding

factor, is not conclusive and has to be

considered along with other cogent

evidence.

23. It is true that in Arnit Das v.

State of Bihar this Court has, on a

review of judicial opinion, observed

that while dealing with a question of

34

determination of the age of an accused,

for the purpose of finding out whether

he is a juvenile or not, a hyper-

technical approach should not be adopted

while appreciating the evidence adduced

on behalf of the accused in support of

the plea that he was a juvenile and if

two views may be possible on the same

evidence, the court should lean in

favour of holding the accused to be a

juvenile in borderline cases. We are

also not oblivious of the fact that

being a welfare legislation, the courts

should be zealous to see that a juvenile

derives full benefits of the provisions

of the Act but at the same time it is

also imperative for the courts to ensure

that the protection and privileges under

the Act are not misused by unscrupulous

persons to escape punishments for having

committed serious offences.”

(g) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh -

(2015) 7 SCC 733, it was observed that the

ossification test is not the sole criterion

for determination of date of birth, when

birth certificate and middle school

certificate are available. It was observed

that the High court was not right in

presuming that the prosecutrix, therein, was

more than 18 years of age at the time of the

incident. There was a difference of two days

in the date of birth mentioned in the birth

certificate and the middle school certificate

35

but the same was held to be a minor

discrepancy. In that case, it was held that

prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the

date of the incident and set aside the

judgment passed by the High Court.

(h)Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another - (2019) 12 SCC 370, is a

judgment authored by one of us (Hon’ble Dr.

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.), wherein the

credibility and authenticity of the

matriculation certificate for the purpose of

determination of the age under Section-7A of

the JJ Act, 2000, came up for consideration.

In the said case, the JJ Board had rejected

the claim of juvenility and this Court

confirmed the decision of the JJ Board

rejecting the claim of juvenility by setting

aside the judgment of the High Court. In the

said case, it was observed that the records

maintained by the CBSE were purely on the

basis of the final list of the students

forwarded by the Senior Secondary School

where the second respondent therein had

36

studied from class 5 to 10, and not on the

basis of any other underlying document. On

the other hand, there was clear and

unimpeachable evidence of date of birth which

had been recorded in the records of another

school which the second respondent therein

had attended till class 4 and which was

supported by voluntary disclosure made by the

accused therein while obtaining both, Aadhaar

Card and driving license. It was observed

that the date of birth reflected in the

matriculation certificate could not be

accepted as authentic or credible. In the

said case, it was held that the date of birth

of the second respondent therein was

17.12.1995 and that he was not entitled to

claim juvenility as the date of the alleged

incident was 18.08.2015.

In the said case, the judgment of this

Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) and

Abuzar Hossain (supra) were considered and it

was noted that the decision in Abuzar

Hossain was rendered three days after the

37

decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena, and in

Abuzar Hossain, which was a three- Judge

Bench decision, it was observed that the

credibility and acceptability of the

documents, including the school leaving

certificate, would depend on the facts and

circumstances of each case and no hard and

fast rule as such could be laid down in that

regard.

It was observed in Abuzar Hossain

(supra) by Hon’ble T.S. Thakur J., as then

the learned Chief Justice was, that directing

an inquiry is not the same thing as declaring

the accused to be a juvenile. In the former,

the Court simply records a prima facie

conclusion, while a declaration is made on

the basis of evidence. Hence, the approach at

the stage of directing an inquiry has to be

more liberal lest, there is miscarriage of

justice. The standard of proof required is

different for both. In the former, the Court

simply records the prima facie conclusion. It

would eventually depend on how the Court

38

evaluates such material for a prima facie

conclusion and the Court may or may not

direct an inquiry. In the latter, the Court

makes a declaration on evidence that it

scrutinises and accepts such evidence only if

it is worthy of acceptance. His Lordship

further observed as under:

“The Court would, therefore, in each

case weigh the relevant factors, insist

upon filing of better affidavits if the

need so arises, and even direct, any

additional information considered

relevant including the information

regarding the age of the parents, the

age of siblings and the like, to be

furnished before it decides on a case-

to-case basis whether or not an enquiry

under Section 7-A ought to be conducted.

It will eventually depend on how the

court evaluates such material for a

prima facie conclusion that the court

may or may not direct an enquiry.”

(i) In case of Parag Bhati (Juvenile through

Legal Guardian-Mother-Smt. Rajini Bhati v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another – (2016)

12 SCC 744, both the aforesaid judgments were

considered and this Court observed as under:

"34.It is no doubt true that if there is a

clear and unambiguous case in favour of the

juvenile accused that he was a minor below

the age of 18 years on the date of the

incident and the documentary evidence at

least prima facie proves the same, he would

be entitled to the special protection under

39

the JJ Act. But when an accused commits a

grave and heinous offence and thereafter

attempts to take statutory shelter under

the guise of being a minor, a casual or

cavalier approach while recording as to

whether an accused is a juvenile or not

cannot be permitted as the Courts are

enjoined upon to perform their duties with

the object of protecting the confidence of

common man in the institution entrusted

with the administration of justice.

35. The benefit of the principle of

benevolent legislation attached to the JJ

Act would thus apply to only such cases

wherein the accused is held to be a

juvenile on the basis of at least prima

facie evidence regarding his minority as

the benefit of the possibilities of two

views in regard to the age of the alleged

accused who is involved in grave and

serious offence which he committed and gave

effect to it in a well-planned manner

reflecting his maturity of mind rather than

innocence indicating that his plea of

juvenility is more in the nature of a

shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law

cannot be allowed to come to his rescue.

(Emphasis added) From the above decision,

it is clear that the purpose of Juvenile

Justice Act, 2000 is not to give shelter to

the accused of grave and heinous offences.

36. It is settled position of law that if

the matriculation or equivalent

certificates are available and there is no

other material to prove the correctness of

date of birth, the date of birth mentioned

in the matriculation certificate has to be

treated as a conclusive proof of the date

of birth of the accused. However, if there

is any doubt or a contradictory stand is

being taken by the accused which raises a

doubt on the correctness of the date of

birth then as laid down by this Court in

Abuzar Hossain, an enquiry for

determination of the age of the accused is

permissible which has been done in the

present case.”

40

(j) In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Hemant

Gupta, J., in Ram Vijay Singh vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh – 2021 CriLJ 2805, it was

observed that the ossification test is not the

sole criterion of age determination and a

blind and mechanical view regarding the age of

the person cannot be adopted solely on the

basis of medical opinion by radiological

examination. Though, radiological examination

is a useful guiding factor for determining the

age of a person, the evidence is not of a

conclusive and incontrovertible nature and it

is subject to a margin of error. Medical

evidence as to the age of a person, though a

very useful guiding factor, is not conclusive

and has to be considered along with other

circumstances. The relevant paragraphs of the

said judgment are extracted as under:

“14. We find that the procedure prescribed in

Rule 12 is not materially different than the

provisions of Section 94 of the Act to

determine the age of the person There are

minor variations as the Rule 12(3)(a)(i) and

(ii) have been clubbed together with slight

change in the language. Section 94 of the Act

does not contain the provisions regarding

benefit of margin of age to be given to the

child or juvenile as was provided in Rule

41

12(30(b) of the Rules. The importance of

ossification test has not undergone change

with the enactment of Section 94 of the Act.

The reliability of the ossification test

remains vulnerable as was Under Rule 12 of the

Rules.

15. 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. However, when the

person is around 40-55 years of age, the

structure of bones cannot be helpful in

determining the age. This Court in Arjun

Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao

Gorantyal and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1 held, in the

context of certificate required under Section

65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, that as per the

Latin maxim, lex non cogit ad impossibilia,

law does not demand the impossible. Thus, 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 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.”

29. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of

the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:

42

(i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any

stage of a criminal proceeding, even after

a 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 this Court.

(ii) An application claiming juvenility could

be made either before the Court or the JJ

Board.

(iia) When the issue of juvenility arises before

a Court, it would be under sub-section (2)

and (3) of section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015

but when a person is brought before a

Committee or JJ Board, section 94 of the

JJ Act, 2015 applies.

(iib) If an application is filed before the

Court claiming juvenility, the provision

of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ

Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read

along with sub-section (2) of section 9 so

43

as to seek evidence for the purpose of

recording a finding stating the age of the

person as nearly as may be.

(iic) When an application claiming juvenility is

made under section 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 under section

94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under

the said provision if the JJ Board has

reasonable grounds for doubt regarding

whether the person brought before it is a

child or not, the Board shall undertake

the process of age determination by

seeking evidence and the age recorded by

the JJ 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 true age of that person. Hence the

degree of proof required in such a

proceeding before the JJ Board, when an

application is filed seeking a claim of

44

juvenility when the trial is before the

concerned criminal court, is higher than

when an inquiry is made by a court before

which the case regarding the commission

of the offence is pending (vide section 9

of the JJ Act, 2015).

(iii) That 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. On the basis of the aforesaid

documents a presumption of juvenility may

be raised.

(iv) The said presumption is however not

conclusive proof of the age of juvenility

and the same may be rebutted by contra

evidence let in by the opposite side.

45

(v) That the procedure of an inquiry by a

Court is not the same thing as declaring

the age of the person as a juvenile sought

before the JJ Board when the case is

pending for trial before the concerned

criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the

Court records a prima facie conclusion but

when there is a determination of age as

per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015

Act, a declaration is made on the basis of

evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ

Board shall be deemed to be the true age

of the person brought before it. Thus, the

standard of proof in an inquiry is

different from that required in a

proceeding where the determination and

declaration of the age of a person has to

be made on the basis of evidence

scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of

such acceptance.

(vi) That it is neither feasible nor desirable

to lay down an abstract formula to

46

determine the age of a person. It has to

be on the basis of the material on record

and on appreciation of evidence adduced by

the parties in each case.

(vii)This Court has observed that 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.

(viii)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. This is in order to

ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act,

2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in

conflict with law. At the same time, the

Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015

is not misused by persons to escape

punishment after having committed serious

offences.

47

(ix) That 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.

(x) 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.

(xi) Ossification Test cannot be the sole

criterion for age determination and a

mechanical view regarding the age of a

person cannot be adopted solely on the

basis of medical opinion by radiological

examination. Such evidence is not

48

conclusive evidence but only a very useful

guiding factor to be considered in the

absence of documents mentioned in Section

94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

30. Bearing in mind the aforesaid position of

law, the same could be applied to the facts of the

present case. It is noted that in the FIR dated

05.05.2020, the name of respondent no.2 has been

written as Nishu and it has been stated that Nishu

S/o Bhushan and other accused were carrying a

Farsa (battle-axe), lathi and balkaties (cane-

knives) and attacked the complainant/ appellant

herein and the members of his family (Annexure P-

1).

31. An application being Misc. Case No.16/2020

filed on behalf of respondent no.2 Nishant before

the JJ Board, Baghpat, was for a declaration that

respondent no.2 was a juvenile delinquent and that

he was approximately 15 years 8 months of age on

the date of commission of the alleged offences

i.e. 05.05.2020. No such application was filed

before the competent Sessions Court.

49

32. Be that as it may. In support of the aforesaid

application, Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet of the

High School issued by the Board of High School and

Intermediate Examination U.P., was produced

stating that the date of birth of respondent no.2

Nishant was 25.09.2004 and that he had passed the

High School Examination held in February, 2019.

The said certificate is dated 27.04.2019.

33. It was stated by the mother of respondent no.2

that birth certificate of respondent no.2 was not

sought after his birth; that when the father of

respondent no.2 sought admission in class 1 in

Sarvoday Public School, Khindora, District

Baghpat, no document in respect of birth was given

at the time of admission in the school. The date

of birth was mentioned orally. That respondent

no.2 Nishant studied in Sarvoday Public School

upto Class 8 and thereafter, he was admitted in

another school viz., Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Higher Secondary School, Shajarpur, Kaidna,

District Baghpat for class 9. The mother of

respondent no.2 in her cross examination has

50

reiterated that the date of birth of respondent

no.2 was orally mentioned at the time of admission

of respondent no.2-Nishant in class 1 at Sarvoday

Public School and no document in support thereof

was submitted in the school.

34. DW-2 Manoj Kumar, Principal, Sardar

Vallabhbhai Patel Higher Secondary School,

Shajarpur, Kaidna, District Baghpat, stated in his

deposition that respondent no.2 Nishant was

admitted to class 9 on 04.07.2017 and a transfer

certificate recording the date of birth of

respondent no.2 as 25.09.2004 was submitted and

the same was entered in the school records. All

the admission forms had to be signed by the

students and the guardians but the transfer

certificate from the previous school was not

verified.

35. Annexure P-11 is a copy of the Admission

Application Form of Sarvoday Public School,

Khindora, Baghpat, which is in Hindi, wherein

respondent no.2 has signed. Annexure P-12 is a

copy of the application form dated 03.04.2014

51

seeking admission to class 8. It is contended by

learned counsel for respondents that on a

comparison of the signatures of respondent no.2 on

Annexure P-11 and Annexure P-12, it is noted that

the signature on Annexure P-11 was made in the

year 2009, whereas, the signature on Annexure P-12

was made in the year 2014 and they are similar.

Further, it is not possible for a child seeking

admission to class 1 to sign his name on the

admission form.

36. DW-3 Surendra Kumar Saini, Principal,

Sarvoday Public School, Khindora, Baghpat, has

stated that respondent no.2 Nishant was a little

above four years of age at the time of admission

in class 1; that no photograph of Nishant was

affixed on the admission form nor was any document

of the previous school of Nishant submitted; that

Nishant studied in Sarvoday Public School from

class 1 to class 8 and after passing class 5,

admission form for class 6 had to be filled but

the same was not available in the file. He further

stated that the admission form dated 03.04.2014

which was duly signed by Nishant and his father

52

was available on record and pertained to class 8.

He also admitted that the signature of Nishant on

admission forms of class 1 and class 8 are

identical but the said admission forms are not

fabricated.

37. The JJ Board, Baghpat, by its order dated

14.09.2020 dismissed the application seeking

medical examination of respondent no.2-Nishant

herein and there is nothing produced to show that

the same has been set aside. According to the JJ

Board, the matriculation certificate issued by the

concerned Board indicated the date of birth as

25.09.2004 and it is only in the absence of such a

document that determination of age had to be by

ossification test or any other latest medical age

determination test. In the instant case, since the

certificate of the matriculation Board was

available, it was unnecessary for orders for

medical test of Nishant.

38. Subsequently, the JJ Board by its order

dated 11.11.2020 allowed the application of

respondent no.1 being Misc. Case No.16/2020 filed

53

on behalf of respondent no.2-Nishant. The JJ board

observed that letter dated 22.07.2020 issued by

the Office of the Administrative Officer, Regional

Office, Intermediate Education Council, Meerut,

UP, revealed that the date of birth of accused

Nishant had rightly been recorded as 25.09.2004 in

the High School mark-sheet. The date of the

incident was 05.05.2020. Hence respondent no.2

Nishant was 15 years and 8 months of age as on the

date of the incident.

39. By order dated 11.11.2020, the JJ Board

declared respondent no.2 Nishant as a juvenile

delinquent in Case Crime No.116 of 2020 for

offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307,

302 and 34 of the IPC P.S. Singhawali Ahir,

District Baghpat.

40. The aforesaid order has been sustained by the

District and Sessions Court as well as the High

Court by holding that section 94 of the JJ Act,

2015 had been complied with in the instant case

inasmuch as the matriculation or equivalent

certificate from the concerned Examination Board

54

had indicated the date of birth of respondent no.2

Nishant to be 25.09.2004. Therefore, Sub-section 2

of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies as there

were no reasonable ground to doubt the said

document. In the absence of there being any

evidence to negate the same, the criminal revision

was dismissed. This is on the strength of Sub-

section (3) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015

which is a deeming provision.

41. Though Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the

appellant, emphasized that the signatures of

respondent no.2-Nishant on the admission forms of

class 1 and class 8 are identical and it could not

be so on the admission form of class 1 as Nishant

was only four and half years old when he was

admitted to class 1. But the fact remains that in

2019, when Nishant completed his class 10, his

date of birth has been shown as 25.09.2004 in the

matriculation certificate. Hence, respondent no.2

was only about 15 years of age on the date of

incident, and in any case he was less than 16

years of age.

55

42. In the absence of there being any rebuttal

evidence brought on record by the appellant

herein, 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, issued by the

concerned Board, gives rise to a presumption that

Nishant was less than 16 years of age on the date

of incident i.e.05.05.2020. Moreover, the letter

dated 22.07.2020 of the Administrative Officer,

Regional Office, Intermediate Education Council,

UP, reveals his age as 25.09.2004.

43. There are two considerations which would

distinguish the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta .

Firstly, in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta , this Court held

that, though, there was no underlying document

corroborating the CBSE record maintained on the

basis of final list of the document forwarded by

the secondary school, there was clear and

unimpeachable evidence of date of birth which had

been recorded in the records of the school which

the second respondent therein had attended till

class 4 and which was supported by voluntary

56

disclosure made by the accused therein while

obtaining both Aadhaar Card and Driving Licence.

44. In the instant case, Ex- P-11 and 12 have

been relied upon to prove that the date of birth

of respondent no. 2 mentioned in the said

documents are in consonance with the date of birth

indicated in the matriculation certificate.

Although, learned counsel for the respondents

contended that Ex- P-11 and 12 cannot be relied

upon, the fact remains that a photocopy of the

High School marksheet of accused Nishant with

Gazette year 2019, Roll No.0485064 year 2019, in

respect of which a letter of verification being

No.R.O.I.E.C./records/4016 dated 22.07.2020,

received from the Office of the Administrative

Officer, Regional Office, Intermediate Education

Council, Uttar Pradesh (Meerut) also authenticated

the date of birth of accused Nishant as

25.09.2004. Moreover, the said matriculation

certificate has been issued by the concerned

Board. Further, the date of birth as recorded in

the school admission records, as well as the

matriculation certificate are the same namely,

57

25.09.2004. The incident occurred on 05.05.2020.

Thus respondent no.2 was only 15 years 7 months of

age on the date of the incident which in any case

is less than 16 years of age.

45. Secondly, in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta , the High

Court had reversed the findings of the Sessions

Judge on the basis of the matriculation

certificate by holding the said certificate would

have precedence over any other document. The same

was reversed by this Court as the Aadhaar Card,

Voter’s ID and Eighth standard marksheet indicated

the date of birth of the second respondent therein

as 27.12.1995 whereas, matriculation certificate

indicated the date of birth as 17.12.1998. And,

according to the medical report, it was opined

that the second respondent was nineteen years of

age on 09.11.2016, when the alleged offences were

said to have committed by him in the said case.

46. But in the instant case, admittedly, there

is no other document indicating the date of birth

of the second respondent contrary to what has been

indicated in the matriculation certificate. Thus,

58

such a discrepancy in the date of birth does not

arise herein. No contra evidence to the documents

produced by the second respondent have been

produced by the appellant herein. In the

circumstances, we are not inclined to differ from

the order of the High court which sustained the

judgment of the District & Sessions Court as well

as of the JJ Board in this case.

47. Section 94 of the JJ 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. The said

presumption has to be drawn on observation of the

child. However, the said presumption may not be

drawn when the Committee or the Board has

reasonable grounds for doubt regarding the person

59

brought before it is a child or not. In such a

case, it can undertake the process of age

determination by the evidence which can be in the

form of:

(i) Date of birth certificate from the school

or the matriculation certificate from the

concerned board, if available or in the

absence thereof;

(ii) The birth certificate given by a

corporation or by a municipal authority or a

panchayat and in the absence of the above;

(iii) Age has to be determined by an

ossification test or any other medical age

determination test conducted on the orders of

the committee or the board.

48.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.

The deeming provision in sub-section (3) of

section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 is also significant

inasmuch as the controversy or the doubt regarding

the age of the child brought before the Committee

60

or the JJ Board is sought to be set at rest at the

level of the JJ Board or the Committee itself.

49. In the circumstances, we find no merit in

the instant appeal and the same is dismissed.

50. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,

stand disposed.

...……………………………………………………………….J

[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]

………………………………………...J

[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 18, 2021.