In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that in cases where conflicting opinions arise over a juvenile offender’s age, the school leaving certificate should find preeminence.
The court found this issue relevant to be decided in a case from Jharkhand where the offender claimed juvenility before the trial court. The Juvenile Board considered his school leaving documents but for a second opinion ordered for a Medical Board’s opinion. As a result, the school document showed his age to be just short of 17 while the medical opinion indicated he was 20.
As a result of the confusion over age, the Juvenile Board and the trial judge directed the accused to be tried as an adult offender. On the case being listed before the Sessions Judge, the accused claimed his juvenility once again. The Sessions Court was convinced and the matter went back to the Juvenile Board a second time. But things did not end there. The complainant in the case appealed to the Jharkhand High Court, which gave credence to the Medical Board’s opinion and the matter shuttled back to the trial judge.
Whether a juvenile or not a juvenile, this question was finally put to rest by the Supreme Court. Using its earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena case (2012), which held that school leaving certificate alone would determine age of a juvenile, the court proceeded to clarify that even in case where a medical opinion existed to the contrary, the school document will prevail, so long as there is no reason to doubt its veracity.
The bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri held, “No cogent reasons have been stated by the High Court to discard the school leaving certificate.” The accused was charge-sheeted for offences of rape and murder that occurred on April 12, 2008. As per his school certificate, his date of birth was May 10, 1991, proving he was 17 on the date of incident. The headmistress of the school had certified genuineness of the document. The only confusion arose with regard to another certificate produced by the school relating to a boy who shared common surname with the accused.
Settling this confusion, the apex court referred to the police report that held the identity of the two individuals to be distinct. Thus the school record stood proved to be of the accused in question. “If that be so, there is no question of subjecting the accused to a medical examination by a medical board,” the SC held.