While delivering a judgment in a Writ Petition, Justice JB Pardiwala of the Supreme Court of India observed that lodging juveniles in a regular prison of adults amount to a deprivation of their personal liberty. The Supreme Court also reiterated that the claim of Juvmility could be made at any stage. The Division Bench headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari also held that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.

The Court observed that The Inquiry contemplates is not a roving inquiry and went on saying that in India factors like poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, indifference and inadequacy of the system often lead to there being no documentary proof of person's age. Therefore, in those cases where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, often certain medical tests resorted for forage determination in absence of the documents enumerated in Sec. 94 of the Act of 2015. 

The brief facts of the case are that Vinod Katara and other were convicted in a murder case by the Trial Court in 1986. Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeals in 2016. Even the SLP filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In the SLP also he did not raise the question of juvenility and then a Writ Petition was filed raising this question and the ApexCourt while discussing all the relevant laws admitted the Writ Petition and issued the following direction to the Trial Court.

(i) We direct the Sessions Court, Agra to examine the claim of the writ   applicant   to   juvenility   in   regard   with   law   within   one month from the date of communication of this order;
(ii) The   concerned   Sessions   Court   shall   also   examine   the authenticity and genuineness of the Family Register sought to be relied upon by writ applicant convict considering that the document   does   not   appear   to   be contemporaneous.   This document assumes importance, more particularly in the light of the fact that the ossification test report may not be absolutely helpful in determining the exact age of the writ applicant on the date of incident. If the Family Register on record is ultimately found to be authentic and genuine, then we may not have to fall upon the ossification test report. In such circumstances, the Presiding Officer concerned shall pay adequate attention towards this document and try to ascertain the authenticity and genuineness of the same. If need be, the statements of the persons concerned i.e. from the concerned government department may also be recorded;

(iii) The   Sessions   Court   shall   ensure   that   the   writ   applicant convict is medically examined by taking an ossification test or any other modern recognized method of age determination;
(iv) The   Sessions   Court   concerned   shall   submit   its   report   as regards the aforesaid to this Court within one month from the date of communication of this order;
(v) The Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to Sessions Court, Agra;
(vi) We request the learned counsel appearing for the State to take appropriate steps to facilitate the Sessions Court to complete the enquiry.

Read the full judgment:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/8735/8735_2022_14_1501_38112_Judgement_12-Sep-2022.pdf

Case Details:-

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 121 OF 2022

VINOD KATARA      .…PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                      ….RESPONDENT