In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the plea of juvenility by a defendant, marking a significant turn of events in a 1995 assault and murder case. Despite the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 during the time of the crime, a recent review by a 5-judge Constitutional bench clarified its compatibility with the 2000 Act, which had raised the age of juvenility from 16 to 18 years.
The case involved conflicting reports on the appellant’s age, with the medical report indicating 19 years, the school register suggesting around 16 years, and the panchayat register noting 20 years. The Court, considering the ambiguity and relying on Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules, decided to extend the benefit of doubt by reducing the age by one year in favor of the appellant.
Highlighting the oversight by the lower courts on Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, the Supreme Court emphasized the provision under sub-rule (3)(b), allowing for a margin of one year in cases where an exact assessment of age is challenging.
The case originated from a 1995 dispute over water irrigation in Barabanki District, resulting in the death of Ganga Prasad. Pawan Kumar, along with his father and a relative, faced charges under various sections of the IPC. The primary contention was the appellant’s age, with conflicting records from the school register and the family register.
The Court emphasized the importance of the school leaving certificate from Primary School, Bhatgawan, as a valid proof of evidence, dismissing the Panchayat Register’s evidentiary value. Additionally, it critiqued the precision of the Bone Ossification Test, stating that it does not provide an exact age and is subject to limitations.
Citing the principle of a liberal approach in cases of juvenility, the Court underscored that in situations with conflicting reports, the benefit of the doubt should favor the accused being considered a juvenile. The decision ultimately accepted the report from the Additional Sessions Judge, declaring the appellant a juvenile at the time of the crime, leading to the quashing of all sentences under Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
