The Supreme Court has noted the importance of adopting a liberal perspective in cases where there is ambiguity, suggesting that the benefit of juvenility should be granted to the accused when two conflicting views are possible. Furthermore, the court has emphasized that the determination of a juvenile's age should be established based on the date when the alleged crime occurred.

The court was examining an appeal filed by an individual who had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307, along with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). The accused had taken the matter to the Supreme Court, asserting a plea of juvenility. Despite previously presenting a similar plea to the Trial and Allahabad High Court, both were dismissed. The court determined that the appellant was indeed a juvenile at the time of committing the offense and partially accepted the appeal. Recognizing that the appellant had already spent 4.5 years in custody, surpassing the maximum sentence duration outlined by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (JJ Act), which is 3 years, the court ordered the immediate release of the appellant.

The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, emphasized that the age of a juvenile should be established by considering the date of the alleged commission of the crime. In instances where there are two plausible views on the issue of juvenility, the court has previously advocated for a liberal approach. 

The individual appealing, was found guilty of offenses under Sections 302 and 307, read in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), resulting in a life imprisonment sentence. The High Court reviewed the conviction and sentence and affirmed them. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant sought recourse from the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's order.

The court observed that the Appellant asserted being under 16, yet in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), he acknowledged being 18 years old. A bone ossification test indicated that the Appellant's age was approximately 19. Despite this disparity, the Trial Court rejected his claim of juvenility, resulting in his convictions.

The court bench noted that the age of a juvenile should be established by considering the date of the alleged crime, not the date when the individual is presented before the court or authority. This implies that the Juvenile Justice Act was applicable at the time of the offense. According to the Act, a juvenile is defined as a person who has not reached 18 years of age on the date of committing the offense. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Rules 2007), outline a comprehensive procedure for determining the age of a juvenile.

The court further emphasized that if the age of a juvenile is established to be below 18 years at the time of the offense, the court or Juvenile Justice Board must acknowledge the juvenile status and issue an appropriate order in the juvenile's best interest. The bench underscored that the governing laws for determining the appellant's age should be the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules of 2007. However, the court observed that both the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge failed to take into account the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules 2007. This rule stipulates that if an exact assessment of the age cannot be ascertained, the child or juvenile should be granted the benefit by considering their age on the lower side within a margin of one year.

After a meticulous examination of conflicting evidence, the court reached the conclusion that the Appellant was indeed a juvenile at the time of the crime. In support of this decision, the court referenced the case of Arnit Das v State of Bihar [(2000) 5 SCC 488] and highlighted the importance of avoiding a hypertechnical approach. The court emphasized that in cases where there are two plausible interpretations of the evidence regarding juvenility, a leaning towards considering the accused as a juvenile should be adopted, particularly in borderline cases.

As a result, the court partially granted the appeal.

Case: Pawan Kumar v State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   3548  OF 2023

ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) No. 7957 OF 2021

Click here to Read/Download Judgement