Case Summary: Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) | Juvenile Justice Case

The Case Summary 'Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh' is one of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, which emphasized that even after the final disposition of a Special Leave Petition, the plea of juvenility may be brought in any court at any time. When the plea of juvenility is raised at a late stage, various medical tests are frequently used to make a determination in the absence of the necessary documentation. While considering the evidence presented on behalf of the accused to support his claim that he is a juvenile, the court shall err on the side of holding the accused to be a juvenile in circumstances where there is a question of fact. This is not a roving inquiry that is being considered.

The Court may accept other proof of age, such as documents, certificates, etc., in lieu of an affidavit. A simple statement that the accused appeared to be one or two years older than the age he claimed to be (as the headmaster in this case said) or that the accused stated his age to be higher than what he claims in the case while being arrested by the police officer would not be very persuasive. The age of a juvenile involved in a legal dispute is often determined by the documentation that has been made public. And the only instances in which the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board, or the Committee must order a medical examination to determine the accused's age are those in which the documents or certificates submitted by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are discovered to be falsified or manipulated.

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari & J.B. Pardiwala

Citation: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2022

Petitioner: Vinod Kumar

Respondent(s): State of U.P. & others

Facts of the Case

The following facts can be employed to summarize this dispute:

(a) The writ applicant along with other co-accused persons was put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC;

(b) The 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in the sessions trial No. 535 of 1983 arising from the case crime no. 126 of 1982 registered with the Fatehpur Sikri District, Agra held the writ applicant herein and the co-accused persons guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment;

(c) The writ applicant herein and the other convicts went in appeal before the Allahabad High Court by filing the Cr. Appeal No. 133 of 1986 questioning the legality and validity of the judgment & order of conviction passed by the trial court dated 06.01.1986;

(d) The appeal was heard by the High Court and vide judgment and order dated 04.03.2016 came to be dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court;

(e) The writ applicant herein dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court dismissing his appeal, referred to above, came before the apex Court by filing an application for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6048 of 2016. This Court vide order dated 16.08.2016 declined to grant leave as prayed for and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Issues Involved

• Whether this Court (apex court) should ask the Sessions Court to examine the authenticity and genuineness of the documents sought to be relied upon by the writ applicant in support of his plea of being a juvenile on the date of the commission of the alleged offence in the year 1982 and also subject the convict to further ossification test
• Whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is applicable in the present petition

Laws Applied

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereafter the Act) by Act No. 33 of 2006

• As per section 2 (l) a juvenile in conflict with law means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen years of age as on the date of commission of such offence.
• Under the proviso to section 7A (1) of the Act, it is mentioned that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter the Rules).

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015

States Presumption and determination of age(Section 94)

1. Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

2. In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining—

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

3. Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.

4. The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

Provisions of Indian Penal Code,1860

Punishment for murder(Section 302) — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

Definitions (Section 2):  In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(g)" inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;

Provisions of the Constitution of India

Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State (Article 39): The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing

1) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood;

2) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

3) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

4) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;

5) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

6) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

Judgment

Following are the directions given by the Supreme Court: 

• The Sessions Court, Agra to examine the claim of the writ applicant to juvenility in regard to law within one month from the date of communication of this order;
• The concerned Sessions Court shall also examine the authenticity and genuineness of the Family Register sought to be relied upon by the writ applicant convict considering that the document does not appear to be contemporaneous. This document assumes importance, more particularly in the light of the fact that the ossification test report may not be absolutely helpful in determining the exact age of the writ applicant on the date of incident. If the Family Register on record is ultimately found to be authentic and genuine, then we may not have to fall upon the ossification test report. In such circumstances, the Presiding Officer concerned shall pay adequate attention to this document and try to ascertain the authenticity and genuineness of the same. If need be, the statements of the persons concerned i.e. from the concerned government department may also be recorded;
• The Sessions Court shall ensure that the writ applicant convict is medically examined by taking an ossification test or any other modern recognized method of age determination;
• The Sessions Court concerned shall submit its report as regards the aforesaid to this Court within one month from the date of communication of this order;
• The Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to Sessions Court, Agra;
• The apex court requested the learned counsel appearing for the State to take appropriate steps to facilitate the Sessions Court to complete the enquiry.

Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 66 that, "Notify this matter after a period of four weeks along with the report that may be received from the Sessions Court, Agra. The final order shall be passed after perusal of the report upon receipt from the Sessions Court, Agra."

Conclusion

The Bench duly acknowledged in para 2 that, "Today, the concept of personal liberty has received a far more expansive interpretation. The notion that is accepted today is that liberty encompasses these rights and privileges which have long been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free man and not merely freedom from bodily restraint. There can be no cavil in saying that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amount to a deprivation of their personal liberty on multiple aspects." The key takeaway to be gained from this really wise decision is that putting children in adult prisons amounts to depriving them of their personal freedom.

The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that placing minors in adult prisons is a very serious matter since it immediately amounts to denying them their right to personal liberty. We are all aware that Article 21 of the Constitution establishes personal liberty as a basic right. There just cannot be any compromise on this, and the Apex Court has laid out the situation for us in the manner previously discussed. Of course, the Court also made it very plain that a highly technical methodology should not be utilized in determining whether someone accused is a juvenile or not.

Important Links

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination