Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Puneet S, was the sole accused in a case charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. During the pendency of the proceedings before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 97/2016, the appellant filed an application claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence. The trial court, by order dated 08.08.2018, rejected the application, holding that the appellant was not a juvenile. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The appellant argued that his date of birth as per school records was 01.06.1998, and the alleged offence occurred on 16.06.2015, making him 17 years and 15 days old at the time of the offence. The respondent-State opposed the appeal, relying on the Medical Board's opinion that the appellant's age was 20-22 years at the time of examination. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had erred in relying solely on the Medical Board's opinion without considering the school records, which were the earliest available evidence. The court emphasized that under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, the age determination must be based on the earliest available evidence, and if there is any doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to treat the appellant as a juvenile and proceed accordingly under the JJ Act, 2015.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Benefit of Doubt - Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The court held that when there is conflicting evidence regarding age, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused to treat him as a juvenile. The court must consider the earliest available evidence, such as school records or medical opinion, and if the age is below 18 years on the date of offence, the accused should be treated as a juvenile. (Paras 5-10) B) Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Earliest Evidence Rule - Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The court emphasized that the age of the accused should be determined based on the earliest available evidence, preferably the school records or birth certificate. In the absence of such documents, medical opinion may be considered. The court must not rely solely on the opinion of the Medical Board without considering other evidence. (Paras 5-10) C) Juvenile Justice - Appeal under Section 101 - Maintainability - Section 101, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The court held that an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015, which deals with the procedure to be followed by a court when the accused claims to be a juvenile. The appellate court can re-appreciate the evidence and set aside the order if it is erroneous. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in not treating the appellant as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, despite evidence suggesting he was below 18 years on the date of the offence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 97/2016, and directed the trial court to treat the appellant as a juvenile and proceed in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Law Points
- Age determination of juvenile
- Benefit of doubt in age determination
- Earliest evidence rule
- Section 94 Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015
- Section 9 Juvenile Justice Act
