REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  449       OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6505 of 2007)

Pappu  ….Appellant  

Versus

Sonu and Anr. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent

No.1.  Respondent  No.1  filed  a Revision  Petition  against  the  order  dated

10.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-I,

Mazaffarnagar. The petition filed by respondent No.1 claiming that he was a

juvenile  was  rejected.  The  respondent  No.1  was  facing  trial  in  S.T.

No.67/07.  During  trial  he  moved  the  application  marked  13Kha  for

declaring him as juvenile pleading that his date of birth was 1.1.1989.   

3. In support  of the claim he relied on various records as well  as  the

statements of his father and mother.  Objections were filed by the State and

the  informant  stating  that  the  applicant  was  a  major  on  the  date  of

occurrence  and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected.  The

learned Additional Sessions Judge did not rely on the educational records

and the statements of the mother as well as of the medical opinion. It was

concluded  that  the  applicant  was  not  juvenile.   The  High  Court  in  the

revision petition  accepted that the school records produced by the applicant

were not reliable and the statement of his mother also did not support his

case. But solely on the basis of a certificate  issued by the doctor it  was

concluded that he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and,

therefore, in terms of Rule 22(5) of Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Rules, 2004  the applicant was to be treated as a

juvenile.  

2

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the informant submitted

that after taking the view that the educational records belied the claim of the

applicant and the mother’s statement was also not accepted.  Merely on the

basis  of  a  certificate  which  does  not  even  indicate  the  basis  for

determination  of  the  age,  the  High  Court  should  not  have  held  that

respondent No.1 was a juvenile.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand supported the

order.  

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  supported  the  stand  taken  by  the

appellant,  submitting  that  the  High  Court’s  judgment  is  clearly

unsustainable.  

7. It is to be noted that the High Court found that the school certificates

produced clearly belied the claim of respondent No.1. The High Court has

categorically found that the various records relied upon by respondent No.1

were not  reliable.  The trial  Court  and the High Court  also held that the

mother’s  evidence  was  also  not  acceptable  because  it  was  based  on

estimations. Strangely the High Court relied upon a certificate of a doctor

3

which did  not  even indicate  the basis on which it  was observed that  the

radiology age of respondent No.1 was about 18 years.  

8. That being so, the abrupt conclusion of the High Court about the age

of  respondent  No.1  cannot  be  maintained.   However,  it  is  open  to

respondent No.1 during trial to establish by cogent and credible evidence

about his  age and his  claim that  he was a juvenile  at  the time when the

occurrence took place.     

9. The appeal is allowed.  

                                     ………................................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

         ………..................................J.

        (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, March 06, 2009

4