Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati was seized of a criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Anantapuramu, dated 04.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2024 in J.C.C.No.02 of 2019, which determined respondent Nos.2 and 3 as juveniles in conflict with law. The petitioner, an agriculturist, contended that the Board erroneously relied on photocopies of marks lists to determine the respondents' ages, despite Aadhaar cards showing they were above 18 years on the date of the offence. The petitioner argued that respondent No.2 had a prior criminal case (C.C.No.1904/2017) where he was treated as an adult and never raised juvenility, and that the Board should have directed a medical board examination or FSL determination. The petitioner also argued that the impugned order was vitiated by grave misappreciation of material and that the marks lists were neither conclusive nor legally admissible for age determination. The State and respondents opposed the revision, submitting that the Investigating Officer verified original S.S.C. mark lists and Transfer Certificates, which under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, are primary evidence for age determination. They argued Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of date of birth, relying on Saroj v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co and a UIDAI circular, and that ossification tests after seven years would be futile and unreliable. The respondents also argued that the relief sought was defective as it combined two distinct prayers, and the Sessions case against adult offenders was already disposed of and pending appeal before the High Court. They contended that the doctrine of estoppel applied against the petitioner, and that the beneficial legislation intended to protect children cannot be defeated by failure to raise juvenility in an earlier compromised matter. The court considered the rival contentions regarding the evidentiary value of school records versus Aadhaar, the statutory priority under Section 94, the effect of prior criminal proceedings on a claim of juvenility, and the need for medical age determination. The text provided does not include the final order or reasoning of the court, so the outcome of the revision and the principles laid down cannot be stated.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision Jurisdiction - Sections 397, 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Challenge to Juvenile Justice Board order determining respondents as juveniles - Petitioner contended order contrary to law and based on inadmissible photocopies - Court examined scope of revision but final decision not mentioned in available text (Paras 1-5). B) Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Section 94 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Statutory priority of school records over Aadhaar for age proof - Petitioner relied on Aadhaar cards showing majority, while respondents argued Section 94 prioritizes school records, matriculation certificates, or birth certificates - Court considered contentions but final holding not available (Paras 3, 6-7). C) Evidence - Documentary Proof of Date of Birth - Aadhaar card not conclusive proof - Petitioner asserted Aadhaar showed respondents above 18, but respondents cited Saroj v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co and UIDAI circular that Aadhaar is not proof of date of birth - Court was called upon to decide evidentiary value of Aadhaar for age determination (Paras 3, 7-8). D) Juvenile Justice - Claim of Juvenility - Prior criminal case and failure to raise plea - Petitioner contended respondent no.2 was treated as adult in prior case C.C.No.1904/2017 and never raised juvenility, while respondents argued beneficial legislation and no estoppel - Court considered whether prior conduct bars juvenility claim (Paras 4, 9). E) Criminal Procedure - Medical Age Determination - Ossification test - Petitioner sought medical board/ossification examination, while respondents argued it would be futile after seven years and Section 94 only permits medical tests in absence of documents - Court considered necessity of such tests but final decision not mentioned (Paras 5, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board erred in determining respondents 2 and 3 as juveniles based on school records instead of Aadhaar cards; whether the Board should have directed ossification test or medical board examination; whether prior criminal antecedents and failure to raise juvenility bar a later claim of juvenility; whether Aadhaar card constitutes conclusive proof of date of birth; whether the revision petition and relief sought are maintainable
Final Decision
The final decision/order of the High Court on the criminal revision is not mentioned in the provided judgment text.
Law Points
- Age determination under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act prioritizes school records over Aadhaar
- Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of date of birth
- earlier failure to plead juvenility does not bar statutory right under beneficial legislation
- ossification test permissible only in absence of statutory documents
- revision jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC
