Holding

When a school admission register or birth certificate is proved and genuine, it must be given effect for age determination, and the Medical Board's opinion is only secondary under Rule 22.

Summary

The appellant, Ram Suresh Singh, appealed against a High Court order that held the accused, Prabhat Singh, to be a juvenile on the basis of school admission register entries showing a birth date of 10‑02‑1987. The trial magistrate had appointed a Medical Board which estimated the accused's age to be over 20 years, but the Juvenile Justice Board relied on the school documents and declared him a juvenile. The High Court affirmed that decision, prompting the appeal. The Supreme Court examined Rule 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, which mandates that a Medical Board's opinion is to be considered only when a school birth certificate is unavailable, and applied Section 35 of the Evidence Act to assess the admissibility of the school register. Finding the school documents genuine and properly proved, the Court held that they must be given effect, and the Medical Board's report was only secondary. Consequently, the High Court's order was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The appropriate hierarchy of evidence for age determination under Rule 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001: school register versus Medical Board report.
Whether entries in a school admission register satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Evidence Act for proving age.
Whether the High Court erred in preferring the school documents over the Medical Board's opinion.
The admissibility and authenticity of the school certificates and register entries.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Juvenile JusticeAge determinationSchool admission registerMedical Board reportSection 35 Evidence ActCriminal lawMurderDocument admissibility

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 451

' '1
RAM SURESH SINGH A
V.
PRABHAT SINGH @ CHHOTU SINGH & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2009
MAY 05, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.)
~ i JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECT/ON OF
CHILDREN) RULES, 2001:
r 22 - Determination of age - Held: Opinion of Medical c
Board is to be preferred only when the date of birth certificate
from the school first attended is not available - On facts, entry
in the school register having been proved, High Court rightly
accepted the same and held the offender as a juvenile -
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
s.6- Evidence Act, 1872- s.35. D

Respondent No.1 was accused of having committed
an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. He raised a plea that
he was a juvenile. He produced entries in the school
admission register. However, the Magistrate concerned
E
appointed a Medical Board and on the basis of its report
held that respondent no.1 was aged more than 20 years
on the date of occurrence. On revision, the High Court
relying upon the evidence regarding entries in the school
register held the offender as a juvenile. Aggrieved, the
complainant filed the appeal. F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Rule 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 provides for the
procedure to be followed in respect of determination of G
,,\ the age of a person. It indicates that the opinion of the
Medical Board is to be preferred only when a date of birth
certificate from the school first attended is not available.
Even if the medical report is to be considered, it is now
451 H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
1' •

A well known that an error of two years in determining the
age is possible. However, the medical opinion rendered
in the instant case corroborates the entry made in the
register. Admission register of the school having been
proved in accordance with law, there is no reason as to
B why the same should not be taken into consideration.
[Para 14, 17-18] [459-D,G ; 460-G-H]
'r ,..
1.2 An entry in a school register may not be a public
document and, thus, must be proved in accordance with
C law but, in the instant case, the said entry has been proved.
The documents produced by respondent no.1 were not
found to be forged, fabricated or otherwise inadmissible
in law. If a document is proved to be genuine and satisfies
the requirements of law, it should be, subject to just
exceptions, relied upon. [Para 16 and 19] [459-F; 461-C]
D
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit 1988 (Supp.) SCC
604; Raja Janaki Nath Roy v. Jyotish Chandra Acharya
Chowdhury AIR 1941 Cal. 41; Vimal Chadha v. Vikas
ChoudhDfY &Anr. 2008 (8) SCALE 608; Pratap Singh v. State
E of Jharkhand & Anr.(2005) 3 SCC 551 - referred to
2.1 The condition laid down in s. 35 of the Evidence
Act for proving an entry pertaining to the age of a student
in a school admission register is to be considered for the
purpose of determining the relevance thereof. But in the
F instant case, the said condition must be held to have been
satisfied. There cannot furthermore be any doubt
whatsoever that same standard is required to be applied
for the purpose of s.35 of the Evidence Act both in civil as
also criminal proceedings. (Para 15 and 18] (459-E;
G 460-B]
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 585
and Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu
=
and Kashmir & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1297 (1982) 2 SCC 202-
H relied on
RAM SURESH SINGH V. PRABHAT SINGH @ 453
CHHOTU SINGH & ANR.

Jyoti Prakash Rai@ Jyoti Prakash v. State of Bihar 2008 A
(3) SCALE 348 - referred to
3. As the date of birth entered in the school register
has been proved, there is no reason as to why the same
should not be given effect to. There is no infirmity in the
order passed by the High Court. [Para 22 and 23] [462-D] 8

... 1 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 909 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 17.05.2006 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Revision c
No. 752 of 2005
Praneet Ranjan, Ajay Amritraj, for the Appellant.
Sishir Pinaki, Kumar Ranjan, Alok Kumar, Manish Kumar,
Gopal Singh, for the Respondent. D
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
E
2. Respondent no.1 is facing trial in Nava Nagar P.S. Case
No.102 of 2003 on the charge of committing murder of one
...
Tribhuvan Singh. Appellant before us is the uncle of the
deceased.
3. Before the learned trial Judge, a plea was raised by F
him that he was a juvenile. In support of the said plea, entries in
the admission register/certificate in the Government SecondaQ:
School, Navanagar, Buxar, in which he took admission on 22 ~
1
January 1996 and studied up to 31° December 1999, were
produced. The said certificate was issued on 23rc1 February G
2000, the relevant portion whereof reads as under :
"1. Name of Student Prabhat Ranjan
2. Father's/Guardian's Name Shri Rajkishor Singh
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

~ ...
A 3. Permanent Address Viii-Amir Pur, Post
Navanagar Distt-
Buxar (Bihar)
4. Date of first admission
in the school 22.01.1996
B
xxx xxx xxx
7. Date of Birth in
·~ ..
Admission Register
(in number and 10.02.1987
c Words) Tenth February
Eighty Seven
8. Date of Leaving the School : 31.12.1999
9. At the time of leaving
D School studying in which
Class 8th"
4. The said admission register/certificate, thus, shows that
the date of birth of the accused is 10.02.1987.

E 5. A xerox copy of another certificate dated 12.11.2003
was also brought on record which was issued by the Principal,
Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav High School. The said certificate also
shows the date of birth of the first respondent to be 10.02.1987.
It was proved by a teacher of the said school, Shri Raj Kumar
F who examined himself as PW -2 as also by the father of the
accused, namely, Raj Kishore Singh.
6. The learned Magistrate, however, appointed a Medical
Board. The Medical Board, in its report dated 10th February
2005, inter alia, upon taking ossification test, estimated his age
G to be within 20 to 22 years.
By an order dated 03'd August 2005, the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna held that on the date
of occurrence, i.e., 10th September 2003, the age of the
H respondent no.1 was more than 20 years stating :
RAM SURESH SINGH V. PRABHAT SINGH @ 455
CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

"Considering the evidence on record, there is only A
"
evidence which is the Report of the Medical Board. The
statement of the father of the accused and the teacher of
the school supported with the certificate which are not
conclusive and sufficient under rules of Juvenile Justice
(Care & Protection) Rules, 2001. Accordingly, on the basis B
of the report of the Medical Board and on physical
appearance of the accused and conclusion arrived at that

- ~ this accused is not Juvenile at this stage nor at the time
of alleged commission of offence. Accordingly, this case
record is remitted back to the court concerned for disposal
)
c
in accordance with law."
7. Respondent no.1 filed a revision application
thereagainst before the High Court of Patna which, by reason
1
of the impugned order dated 17 h May 2006, was allowd by a
learned Single Judge, holding : D

"' "Considering the submission made by the parties and the
decision relied on by them, find that the evidence which
was produced by the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice
Court were sufficient for determination of his age. The
certificate granted by the Headmaster by Ram Lakhan E
Singh High School stating the date of birth of the petitioner
as 10.02.1987 was issued on 23.02.2000 and the date of
occurrence is 10.09.2003, much after issuance of
certificate by the headmaster of Ram Lakhan Singh High
School where the date of birth of the petitioner has been F
mentioned as 10.02.1987. In support of the age, the
admission register of the school was also produced
wherein the petitioner's name has been mentioned in
Sl.No.134. There also the date of birth of the petitioner
has been mentioned as 10.02.1987 and the date of G
issuance of school leaving certificate is mentioned as
23.02.2000. There is no reason for doubting or suspecting
the genuineness of these two documents.Jn the impugned
order also no reason has been assigned for disbelieving
the transfer certificate and the photo copy of the certificate H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A issued from Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav tJigh School, Nava
Nagar. Rule 22(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and ' .
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, order of priority has
been given to the certificate of birth issued by the school
in preference to the opinion of the duly constituted medical
B board. Only in case of some dispute regarding
genuineness of these documents, the Juvenile Justice
Board can seek opinion of duly constituted medical board

C
for ascertaining the age of an accused for declaring him
Juvenine.
Considering the fact that there is nothing on record to
... -
disbelieve these documents the evidence of the father as
well as teacher, the Juvenile Justice Board should have
decided in favour of the petitioner and declared him
Juvenile. The Apex Court also in similar matters have
D decided that the liberal view should be taken by Juvenile
Justice Board as well as courts while ascertaining the
age of accused for the purpose of declaring him Juvenile.
Relying upon the certificate produced before the Juvenile
Justice Board and the evidence of father and teacher,
E certainly the petitioner was a Juvenile on the date of
occurrence.
Accordingly the order dated 03.08.2005 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board Patna City in J.J.B.o.492 of 2005
is set aside and this application is allowed."
F
8. Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant would contend :
(i) Having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the High Court committed
G a serious error in relying upon the entries made in
the School register in preference to the opinion of
the Medical Board.
(ii) An entry in regard to date of birth of a student recorded
in admission register, being not a public document,
H .
RAM SURESH SINGH V PRABHAT SINGH @ 457
CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

: . must be proved to have been recorded at the
instance of a person who was the guardian of the
student.
A

Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this
Court in case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit
[1988 (Supp.) SCC 604] and a decision of the B
Calcutta High Court in the case of Raja Janaki Nath
Roy v. Jyotish Chandra Acharya Chowdhury [AIR
• 'i 1941 Cal. 41].

(iii) As the age of a person required to be determined by c
a person having regard to the provisions contained
in Section 35 of the Evidence Act both in civil as also
in criminal proceeding involve the same legal
principle, the High Court failed to consider the

•,,,.
•
depositions of the witnesses examined in the enquiry,
namely, Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore Singh, in their
proper perspective.
D

9. Mr. Shishir Pinaki, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent no.1, on the other hand, urged :
E
(a) as the admission register of the school in respect of
the respondent no.1 showing his date of birth has
been proved, the impugned order is unassailable.
(b) It was, however, submitted that in the event the
medical report is taken into consideration· [which F
otherwise may not be necessary in view of Rule 22(5)
of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)
Rules, 2001 ], the respondent's age would be 18 years
naving regard to the fact that an error of two years or
either side is possible.
G
(c) Bihar Education Code having a statutory status, as
Article 242 whereof provides for maintenance of a
school register, presumption of correctness in respect
thereof should be raised.
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A 10. Determination of age of a person sometimes poses a
difficult question. In the absence of any statutory rule having been
framed, no doubt, the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence
Act were required to be stric!IY complied with.
Section· 6 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
B Children) Act, 2000 deals with the power of the Juvenile Justice
Board which is extracted below :
"6. Powers of Juvenile Justice Board.-(1) Where a
Board .has been constituted for any district or a group of
c districts, such Board shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force but
save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, have
power to deal exclusively with all proceedings under this
Act relating to juvenile in conflict with law.
D (2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this
Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the
Court of Session, when the proceeding comes before
them in appeal, revision or otherwise."
11. Respondent no.1 claims himself to be a juvenile. An
E enquiry was directed to be conducted. In the said enquiry,
evidently, the original register maintained by the Government
Secondary School, Nava Nagar was produced. Date of birth of
the said respondent was stated to be 10.02.1987. Before us, a •)
contention was raised as to whether column no.5 thereof was
F filled up or not. An affidavit was filed to show that column no.5 is
statement on the declaration of the father. We would, therefore,
proceed on the said basis.
12. Respondent no.1 was admitted in the Govt. Secondary
nd
School, Nava Nagar on 22 January 1996. He left the school
G on 31st December 1999. Certificate was issued on 23rc1 February
2000 so as to enable him to take admission in another school,
namely, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav High School. We may not
consider the certificate granted by the Principal of the latter
H school as only a xerox copy thereof was filed inasmuch as the
RAM SURESH SINGH V. PRABHAT SINGH @ 459
CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

original having been not produced, the same was inadmissible A
in evidence.

13. Before the courts below, Shri Raj Kumar, a teacher of
Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav School examined himself. Although
he was not present when the respondent no.1 was admitted in
the school, but he proved the contents of the admission register. B
It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the contents of the
admission register were not proved. Raj Kishore Singh, father
of the respondent no.1 also examined himself. He also proved
the date of birth of the respondent no.1.
c
14. In terms of the provisions of Section 68 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Central
Government has framed Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Rules, 2001. Rule 22 of the said Rules provides for
the procedure to be followed in respect of determination of the
0
age of a person. It indicates that the opinion of the Medical Board
is to be preferred only when a date of birth certificate from the
school first attended is not available.

15. The condition laid down in Section 35 of the Evidence
Act for proving an entry pertaining to the age of a stqpent in a E
school admission register is to be considered for the purpose ·
of determining the relevance thereof. But in this case, the said
condition must be held to have been satisfied.

16. An entry in a school register may not be a public
document and, thus, must be proved in accordance with law, as F
has been held by this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi
(supra), but, in this case the said entry has been proved.

• 17. Even if we had to consider the medical report, it is
now well known that an error of two years in determining the G
age is possible.

In the case of Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government
of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 1297 = (1982) 2
SCC 202], this Court held :
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

"However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice y
A
that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological
examination is two years on either side."
18. There cannot furthermore be any doubt whatsoever
that same standard is required to be applied for the purpose of r
8 Section 35 of the Evidence Act both in civil as also criminal
proceedings, as was held by this Court in the case of Ravinder
-
Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P (2006) 5 SCC 584, stating :
•
"38. The age of a person as recorded in the school register
c or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely,
for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for
contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a
separate unit under ceiling laws; and even for the purpose
of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being
represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit
D
is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he ...
was not appropriately represented therein or any
transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a
minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the
age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of
E Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same
standard. No different standard can be applied in case of
an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar
offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might
have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the
F entries made in the register maintained by the school, a
judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be
deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be
~
convicted."
G ,..
However, the medical opinion rendered in this case
corroborates the entry made in the register. Admission register
of the school having been proved in accordance with law, we
..
do not see any reason as to why the same should not be taken
into consideration.
H
RAM SURESH SINGH V PRABHAT SINGH @ 461
CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]

-• 19. We are not oblivious of the fact that it is difficult to lay A
down a law as to whether in a case of this nature, the lower or
the upper age or the average age should be taken into
consideration. Each case depends on its own facts. In the case
of Jyoti Prakash Rai@ Jyoti Prakash v. State of Bihar 2008(3)
SCALE 348 this Court, upon consideration of large number of B
decisions, opined :

'(
"19. Appellant herein had produced a large number of
documents to prove his age purported to be as on the
date of commission of the crime. The genuineness of the
·school certificate and the horoscope had been questioned. c
The school certificate produced by the appellant was found
to be forged and fabricated and as a matter of fact a
-· criminal case was directed to be instituted against the
Head of the Institution.
D
20. The court, therefore, had no other option but to
determine the age on the basis of the Medical Reports. Both
the medical reports dated 24.04.2001 and 29.06.2001 opined
the age of the appellant between 18 and 19 years. In terms of
first medical report, the age of the appellant came to be 18 years
5 months 8 days and in terms of the second medical report, it E
came to be between 18 and 19 years. The High Court opined
that the appellant on 1.04.2001 was definitely above 18 years
A of age and not below 18 years of age.
. 21. The courts have considered this aspect of the matter F
on earlier occasions also. If, thus, on the basis of several factors
including the fact that school leaving certificate and the horoscope
produced by the appellant were found to be forged and
•
-) fabricated and having regard to two medical reports the courts
-\
below have found the age of the appellant as on 1.04.2001 to
G
be above 18 years, we are of the opinion that no exception
,. thereto can be taken."
In this case, however, the documents produced by the
respondent no.1 were not found to be forged, fabricated or
otherwise inadmissible in law. If a document is proved to be H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R

A genuine and satisfies the requirements of law, it should be, y -

subject to just exceptions, relied upon. )-

20. However, in the case of Vimal Chadha v. Vikas
Choudhary & Anr. 2008(8) SCALE 608, this Court remitted the
matter back for consideration of the age in terms of the rules
B keeping in view of the provisions contained in Section 472 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.

21. Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has relied upon certain observations made by one of
c us in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. )

(2005) 3 sec 551 to contend that model rules have no
application, but as the statutory rules have come into force in
the procedure laid down therein should. be followed.

22. As in this case, the date of birth entered into the school
D register has been proved, we are of the opinion that there is no
reason as to why the same should not be given effect to.

23. We, therefore, find no legal infirmity in the order passed
by the High Court. This appeal is dismissed.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

,
,