Supreme Court of India
PAPPUversusSONU AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 333
- Decided
- 6 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court's conclusion that the accused was a juvenile based solely on a medical certificate is unsustainable; the accused must establish his claim of juvenility with credible evidence during trial.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a High Court order that had declared the accused a juvenile based solely on a doctor's certificate, despite rejecting school records and the mother’s testimony as unreliable. The accused had claimed he was born on 1 January 1989 and sought to be tried as a juvenile under Rule 22(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004. The High Court had dismissed the educational documents and parental statements but accepted the medical certificate, concluding the accused was under 18 at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court held that such an abrupt conclusion was untenable and that the accused must prove his claim of juvenility with cogent, credible evidence during the trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing that the claim of juvenility be examined afresh in the trial court. The decision underscores the need for reliable age determination before invoking juvenile justice provisions.
Issues considered
- The validity of the High Court's reliance on a medical certificate alone to determine the accused's age under Rule 22(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice Rules, 2004.
- Whether the accused can be declared a juvenile without credible evidence beyond the disputed medical certificate.
Subjects
juvenilityjuvenile justiceage determinationRule 22(5)criminal trialevidence reliabilitymedical certificateschool recordsSupreme Court
Judgment
(2009] 4 SC R 108
A PAPPU
V.
SONU AND ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 2009
MARCH 6, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ)
LJTIAR PRADESH JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN) RULES. 2004:
c
r 22(5) - Claim of juvenility - Rejected by trial court -
High Court in revision petition holding the documents relied
upon by accused and his mother's statement not reliable. but
relying upon medical certificate holding the accused below
18 years at the time of commission of offence - HELD: Abrupt
0
conclusion of High Court about age cannot be maintained -
However, it would be open to accused during trial to establish
his claim.
The instant appeal was filed by the informant
E challenging the order of the High Court in a revision
petition holding that accused-respondent no. 1, who was
facing a criminal trial, was juvenile at the time of
commission of the offence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: The High Court found that the school
certificates produced clearly belied the claim of accused-
respondent No.1. The High Court has categorically found
that the various records relied upon by respondent No.1
G were not reliable. The trial court and the High Court both
have held that the mother's evidence was also not
acceptable because it was based on estimations.
Strangely, the High Court relied upon the certificate of a
doctor which did not even indicate the basis on which it
H 108
PAPPU V. SONU AND ANR. 109
was observed that the radiology age of respondent No.1 A
was about 18 years. The abrupt conclusion of the High
Court about the age of respondent No.1 cannot be
maintained. However, it is open to respondent No.1 during
trial to establish by cogent and credible evidence about
his age and his claim that he was a juvenile at the time when B
the occurrence took place. [para 7-8] [110-F-H; 111-A-B]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 449 of 20.09
From the Judgement and Order dated 07.09.2007 of the C
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.
1992 of 2007.
P. Radha Rani, R.S. Krishnan, P. Vijaya Kumar, D. Mahesh
Babu, for the Appellant.
D
B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh Jan, Mamta Jain, Manish
Raghav, Vipin Gupta, Ratnakar Dash, Manoj Mishra, Kamlendra
.Mishra, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
E
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ F
Petition filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed a
Revision Petition against the order dated 10. 7 .2007 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-I,
Mazaffarnagar. The petition filed by respondent No.1 claiming
that he was a juvenile was rejected. The respondent No.1 was G
facing trial in S.T. No.67/07. During trial he moved the application
marked 13Kha for declaring him as juvenile pleading that his
date of birth was 1.1.1989.
. ..
3. In support of the claim he relied on various, r.ecords as H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A well as the statements of his father and mother. Objections were
filed by the State and the informant stating that the applicant
was a major on the date of occurrence and, therefore, the
application was liable to be rejected. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge did not rely on the educational records and the
8 statements of the mother as well as of the medical opinion. It
was concluded thatthe applicant was not juvenile. The High Court
in the revision petition accepted that the school records
produced by the applicant were not reliable and the statement
of his mother also did not support his case. But solely on the
c basis of a certificate issued by the doctor it was concluded that
he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and,
therefore, in terms of Rule 22(5) of Uttar Pradesh Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 the
applicant was to be treated as a juvenile.
D 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the informant
submitted that after taking the view that the educational records
belied the claim of the applicant and the mother's statement
was also not accepted. Merely on the basis of a certificate which
does not even indicate the basis for determination of the age,
E the High Court should not have held that respondent No.1 was
a juvenile.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand
supported the order.
F 6. Learned counsel for the State supported the stand taken
by the appellant, submitting that the High Court's judgment is
clearly unsustainable.
7. It is to be noted that the High Court found that the school
certificates produced clearly belied the claim of respondent
G No.1. The High Court has categorically found that the various
records relied upon by respondent No.1 were not reliable. The
trial Court and the High Court also held that the mother's
evidence was also not acceptable because it was based on
estimations. Strangely the High Court relied upon a certificate
H of a doctor which did not even indicate the basis on which it
..
PAPPU V SONU AND ANR. 111
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
• was obseNed that the radiology age of respondent No.1 was
about 18 years.
A
__,
8. That being so, the abrupt conclusion of the High Court
about the age of respondent No.1 cannot be maintained.
However, it is open to respondent No.1 during trial to establish
by cogent and credible evidence about his age and his claim 8
that he was a juvenile at the time when the occurrence took place.
9. The appeal is allowed.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "juvenility"Sign in to search