age determination - The Legal Chamber

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor under Sections 363/376 IPC. The school certificate (Ex.P11) lacked corroborative evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as the source of birth records was unverified. Additionally, charges of kidnapping (Section 363) and wrongful confinement (Section 342) were unsubstantiated, as the victim’s voluntary companionship and lack of coercion negated criminal intent. The Court emphasized that mere entries in official documents require independent proof to establish age conclusively, and absence of non-consensual sexual intercourse invalidated the rape charge (Section 376). Benefit of doubt was granted due to insufficient evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Birka Shiva...

Age Dispute in Crime : Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the determination of an accused as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing that school records and birth certificates take precedence over medical age tests under Section 94(2). The Court clarified that once juvenility is established, bail considerations for juveniles differ from adults, focusing on rehabilitation rather than offence gravity. It also affirmed that Section 15 (preliminary assessment for heinous offences) does not negate juvenile status but mandates a separate evaluation for trial as an adult. The ruling reinforced the statutory hierarchy of age-proof documents and restricted JJBs from reviewing earlier age determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Rajni (appellant), the mother of a ...