SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & Anr.

#2. The deposition of the school Headmaster indicated that the second respondent was admitted to Secondary School, Shikohabad in the fifth standard and was a student of the school until he completed his matriculation. The second respondent attended the first school until the fourth standard. The school register and transfer certificate form of that school specifically contained an entry in regard to the date of birth of the second respondent as 17 December 1995. The date of birth which was recorded in the certificate of the first school completely matched the date of birth which was voluntarily disclosed by the second respondent both while obtaining his driving licence as well as the Aadhaar card. In both those documents, the date of birth was reflected as 17 December 1995. The driving license and the Aadhaar card are not stand alone documents. The date of birth in the records of school where the second respondent was a student from Class V to Class X was without any underlying document, as stated by the Principal in the course of the enquiry before the JJB. On the other hand, there was a clear and unimpeachable evidence in the form of the date of birth which was recorded in the records of first school attended which is supported by the voluntary disclosure made by the second respondent while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and the driving licence. The High Court reversed the findings of the Sessions Judge purely on the basis of the matriculation certificate. The date of birth as reflected therein cannot be accepted as authentic or credible. Once it is held that the date of birth of the second respondent is 17 December 1995, he is not entitled to the claim of juvenility as of the date of the alleged incident which took place on 18 August 2015. [Paras 14, 15] [751-G-H; 752-A-H] Prag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC 744 : [2016] 2 SCR 1089 ; Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam (2001) 5 SCC 714 : [2001] 3 SCR 669 ; Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750 : [2012] 10 SCR 540 ; Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 : [2012] 9 SCR 244 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 738 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2016] 2 SCR 1089 [2001] 3 SCR 669 [2012] 10 SCR 540 B [2012] 9 SCR 244 referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 4 Para 4 Para 5 Para 7(iii) C D E F G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Revision No. 2952 of 2017. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Dhananjay Garg, Baban Kr. Sharma, Ms. Rani Mishra, Jatinderpal Singh and Ms. Pratiksha Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant. Ravindra Singh, Sr. Adv., Vishnu Shankar Jain, Raman Yadav, Syed Mehdi Imam, Ms. Varnita Rastogi, Dr. Amarendra Pratap Yadav, Ms. Kritiya Pandey, Rupesh Kumar, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma and Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

#1. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a claim of juvenility in a decision of its Single Judge dated 14 November 2018. The judgment is challenged in this appeal1 by the complainant.

#2. On 28 October 2015, a First Information Report was lodged by the appellant at PS Ekka in the district of Firozabad in Uttar Pradesh which was registered as Case Crime 252 of 2016 under Section 364 A of the Penal Code. The allegation is that the appellant received a call on his cell phone from an unknown number and the caller wished to speak to his son, claiming to be his teacher. The appellant’s son who was about thirteen years old was studying in the eighth standard in a public school in Shikohabad. After calling back on the number, the appellant’s son left his shop after a conversation, never to return. The victim is alleged to have been murdered after a demand for ransom. His body was allegedly found in a canal. The second respondent was arrested during the course of the investigation. H 1 Criminal Revision 2952 of 2017 SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.] 739

#3. On 9 December 2015, the accused filed an application claiming to be a juvenile on the date of the incident under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 20002. He submitted that on the date of the alleged offence he was sixteen years ten months and eleven days old. In support of the claim, he relied on a matriculation certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education3, Delhi reflecting his date of birth as 17 December 1998.

#4. By an order dated 2 July 2016 the Juvenile Justice Board4 allowed the application of the second respondent – accused and declared him to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence. The appellant instituted a criminal appeal before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Firozabad5. On 16 September 2016, the Sessions Judge remanded the case to the JJB for determination of the age of the second respondent upon medical examination. The Chief Medical Officer, Agra constituted a Medical Board which in its report dated 19 November 2016 found that the age of the second respondent was about nineteen years. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the second respondent filed a revision6 before the High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 4 January 2017. He instituted a petition7 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19738 which was disposed of by the High Court on 17 April 2017 directing the early disposal of the pending application of the second respondent. On 1 July 2017, the JJB rejected the claim of juvenility on the basis of the medical report. The JJB also observed that the second respondent had filed an application for obtaining a driving license and an Aadhaar card in which he had declared his date of birth as 17 December 1995. On this basis, the JJB held that the second respondent was an adult on the date of the incident. The second respondent filed an appeal against the order of the JJB before the Sessions Judge, Firozabad9. The Sessions Judge rejected the appeal by an order dated 2 August 2017 observing, on the basis of the decision of this Court in Prag Bhati v State of Uttar Pradesh10 that the credibility and authenticity of the 2 Act of 2000 3 CBSE 4 JJB 5 Criminal Appeal 41 of 2016 6 Revision Petition 3246 of 2016 7 Petition No 12801 of 2017 8 CrPC 9 Criminal Appeal 27 of 2017 10 (2016) 12 SCC 744 A B C D E F G H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G documents depends upon the circumstances of each case and that in a case involving conflicting school certificates, a further inquiry would be required. The Sessions Judge also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v State of Assam11.

#5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Judge, the second respondent moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a Criminal Revision. The High Court allowed the revision and declared that on the date of the alleged offence, the second respondent was a minor. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court adverted to the provisions contained in Section 7 A of the Act of 2000 and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 200712 as interpreted by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v State of Madhya Pradesh13. The High Court held that the matriculation certificate issued by the CBSE would have to be given precedence over any other evidence of the date of birth, having due regard to the provisions contained in Rule 12(3)(a). It held that the validity of the matriculation certificate issued by the CBSE had not been disputed but what was in dispute was the date of birth which was recorded in the certificate. The Court took notice of the fact that during the course of the investigation, the investigating officer had collected the driving licence, Aadhaar card, voter’s ID and eighth standard mark sheets which indicated that the date of birth of the second respondent was 27 December 1995. The matriculation certificate indicated that the date of birth was 17 December 1998. According to the medical report, the second respondent was about nineteen years of age on 9 November 2016. Ultimately, in the view of the High Court, precedence would have to be given to the date of birth which was indicated in the matriculation certificate. The decision of the JJB, as affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, was set aside and the claim of juvenility was allowed.

#6. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition was instituted before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution on 14 January 2019. On 16 April 2019, this Court issued notice to the CBSE and directed it to produce all necessary records pertaining to the second respondent. CBSE was directed to file an affidavit explaining the basis on which the date of birth was recorded in the matriculation certificate. On 6 May 2019 after the records were produced before this Court an affidavit was