Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Devi Singh.
The Appellant filed the present appeal, i.e. Suresh after the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the order of the Sessions Court in declaring the Respondent no.2, i.e., Devi Singh as a ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Factual Matrix
The Appellant alleged that the Respondent forcibly restrained his brother, Rajesh and fired a country-made pistol at him with the intention to kill him. Rajesh suffered injuries and died en route to the hospital. When the complaint proceeded into a Sessions Trial, the Trial Court declared Devi Singh as a juvenile at the time of the incident.
Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant preferred a criminal revision petition before the High Court, where the juvenility of Devi Singh was confirmed.
Submissions of the Appellants and Respondents
The Appellant submitted that the Courts erred in confirming Devi Singh’s juvenility based on school transfer certificates submitted by the Respondents. The court overlooked statutory documents such as the Family Register and the Voter’s List. The Appellants submitted that even the medical report produced before the court depicted Devi Singh’s age as 20 years old. The Appellants relied upon the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, wherein the court held that in severe offences of rape, murder, etc., the accused cannot misuse the Act to prove his juvenility on the basis of evidence which creates reasonable doubt of the same.
The Respondents submitted that Devi Singh was a juvenile at the time of the incident and produced school transfer certificates before the court to prove his juvenility. The Respondents also submitted that Devi Singh has already been released by the Juvenile Justice Board after serving the maximum punishment of 3 years as prescribed by the law. Thus, the prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision
The SC stated that the Trial Court and High Court did not exercise proper approach to this case. The SC discredited the school transfer certificates produced before the court due to reasonable doubt being created by them. The date of birth mentioned in the first school transfer certificate has been recorded as per the oral submission of the Respondent’s father, with no evidence of the same. Three more school transfer certificates were produced, but they were contingent on the first certificate, which the court discredited. The court also took account of the Voter’s List and the Family Register produced by the Appellants, which made it clear that the Respondent could not have been a juvenile at the time of the unfortunate incident.
Thus, the SC set aside the Trial Court’s decision and ordered the Court to expedite the trial. Taking into account the submission made by the respondent regarding his release by the Juvenile Justice Board after 3 years of punishment, the SC directed that the Respondent shall be at liberty to pray for bail, which the Trial Court can decide on its own merits. If the trial results in conviction, the respondent’s punishment will reduce by 3 years.
