Home juvenile justice latest judgements of supreme court/high courts Determination of juvenility under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,...

Determination of juvenility under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- A discussion and procedure prescribed by Supreme Court

80
0
SHARE

 Rajul Jain, Legal Research Officer,  Shakti Vahini

In view of the large number of appeals coming before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the accused pleaded juvenility at the date of commission of offence and the dilemma and varying approach regarding the determination of the same by the lower courts, the Apex Court has attempted to lay down guidelines and set parameters of action in such cases. An analysis of the judgments given by the Supreme Court sheds light on the application of the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The relevant provisions of the Act are:

Section 7A – Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.

(1)Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an   inquiry,     take     such     evidence     as     may     be    necessary(but     not     an     affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not,   stating     his     age     as     nearly     as    may   be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.”

Rule 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.― (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.

(2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the   age     determination     inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining –

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

 (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.

(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is  required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub rule (3) of this rule.

(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.”

                                                                                                                        (Emphasis added)

In case of Abzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal the court while considering the scope of section 7A of JJ Act held, “The expression, ‘any court’ in Section 7A is too wide and comprehensive; it includes this Court.  Supreme Court Rules surely do not limit the operation of Section 7A to the courts other than this Court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time after disposal of the case.”

Further, clarifying the position with regards the plea of juvenility and the position of law the court has held as under:

“(i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case.  It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case.    The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim.  The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in appeal court.

(ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary.  Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.

(iii) As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility  but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters’ list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected.  In Akbar Sheikh  and Pawan  these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated  sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant’s age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent.

(iv) An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of  the  matter or after disposal of the case shall  not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of age of the delinquent.

(v) The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in 2000 Act are not defeated by hyper-technical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

(vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at threshold whenever raised.”

Also in the case of Anil Agarwal and Another v. State of West Bengal [(2011) 2 SCALE 429], the Supreme Court had held that, “that Section 7A of the Act, as it now reads, gives right to any accused to raise the question of juvenility at any point of time and if such an issue is raised, the Court is under an obligation to make an inquiry and deal with that claim.”

In Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of MP, the court while criticising the approach of roving enquiry undertaken by the High Court and Trial Court has made the following observations with regard to scope of section7A:

“Section 7A, obliges the court only to make an   inquiry,     not     an    investigation   or a   trial, an inquiry not under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but under the J.J. Act.  Criminal Courts, JJ Board, Committees etc., we have noticed, proceed as if they are conducting a trial, inquiry, enquiry or investigation as per the Code. Statute requires the Court or the Board only to make an ‘inquiry’ and in what manner that inquiry has to be conducted is provided in JJ Rules.  Few of the expressions used in Section 7A and Rule 12 are of considerable importance and a reference to them is necessary to understand the true scope and content of those provisions.  Section 7A has used the expression “court shall make an inquiry”, “take such evidence as may be necessary” and “but not an affidavit”.   The Court or the Board can accept as evidence something more than an affidavit i.e. the Court or the Board can accept documents, certificates etc. as evidence need not be oral evidence. Rule 12 which has to be read along with Section 7A has also used certain expressions which are also be borne in mind.  Rule 12(2) uses the expression “prima facie” and “on the basis of physical appearance” or “documents, if available”.  Rule 12(3) uses the expression “by seeking evidence by obtaining”.   These expressions in our view re-emphasize the fact that what is contemplated in Section 7A and Rule 12 is only an inquiry. Further, the   age     determination     inquiry has to be completed and age be determined within thirty days from the date of making the application; which is also an indication of the manner in which the inquiry has to be conducted and completed. The word ‘inquiry’ has not been defined under the J.J. Act, but Section 2(y) of the J.J. Act says that all words and expressions used and not defined in the J.J. Act but defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.”

The Court further elaborating on the scope of terms inquiry and investigation as provided under Criminal Procedure Code held that the same are not applicable to the claim of juvenility under section 7A of the JJ Act. It was further observed that, “Many of the cases, we have come across, it is seen that the Criminal Courts are still having the hangover of the procedure of trial or inquiry under the Code as if they are trying an offence under the Penal laws forgetting the fact that the specific procedure has been laid down in section 7A read with Rule 12.”

Further observation of the Court in this regard was as follows:

“Age determination inquiry” contemplated under section 7A of the Act r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available.  Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court need obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school.  Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court need obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents).   The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above mentioned documents are unavailable.  In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.

Once the court, following the above mentioned procedures, passes an order; that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law.  It has been made clear in subsection (5) or Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to sub-rule (3) of the Rule 12.  Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the Juvenility on its determination.

Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion etc.  There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat may not be correct.  But Court, J.J. Board or a Committee functioning under the J.J. Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business.  Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court, the J.J. Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination.”

The Supreme Court in the present case held that the approach of the lower courts to disbelieve the certificates produced and carrying on detailed probe as unwarranted. While holding thus the Court remarked, “Legislature and the Rule making authority in their wisdom have in categorical terms explained how to proceed with the age determination inquiry.  Further, Rule 12 has also fixed a time limit of thirty days to determine the age of the juvenility from the date of making the application for the said purpose.   Further, it is also evident from the Rule that if the assessment of age could not be done, the benefit would go to the child or juvenile considering his / her age on lower side within the margin of one year. “

Thus the present position of law as set by the rule of precedent is that in case the plea of juvenility is raised before any court the procedure for determination of the same is to be strictly guided by the law laid down in the JJ Act without having resort to any roving enquiry.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here