Rajasthan High Court: In a revision petition filed by the complainant against the Trial Court’s order allowing the application of juvenility filed by the accused and directing him to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) in kidnapping and rape case, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep Shah, J., while dismissing the petition, reiterated that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the trial or even at the appellate stage, as also before the Supreme Court in SLP, for the very first time. The Court further noted that the yardsticks for age determination are clearly laid out in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’).
Background
The First Information Report (‘FIR’) was filed against the accused by the complainant for kidnapping his minor sister. A charge sheet was filed by the police for offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(M) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’), after recovering the victim. On 9-9-2024 and 25-11-2024 an application was made from the side of the accused to be tried as juvenile but was not pressed.
The trial of the case commenced and thereafter post-examination of all prosecution witnesses, during the examination of the accused a fresh application dated 18-12-2024 was filed by accused asserting therein that the police had wrongly filed the charge-sheet while treating him as an adult and also asserting that the document, which has been relied upon by the police officials, which is a part of the charge-sheet, does not specify his correct date of birth. The Trial Court after conducting an enquiry, by way of the order held the accused was a juvenile and directed him to appear before the JJB and forwarded the entire record to it. Aggrieved by this order the present revision petition was filed.
Issues
-
At what stage the claim of juvenility can be raised by the accused juvenile?
-
What shall be the yardsticks to be adopted by a Court while deciding the issue of juvenility of an accused?
-
Whether the principles of res judicata are applicable to criminal proceedings also?
Analysis and Decision
On the Stage to Raise a Claim of Juvenility
The Court perused Sections 9 and 3 (i)(ix)(xvi) of the JJ Act and noted that,
“the very purpose of the Act would be frustrated if the child in conflict with the law is not permitted to raise the ground of juvenility at the fag end of the trial or even subsequent thereto. Rather such argument would be in teeth of the provisions of Section 3(i)(ix)(xvi) as also in direct conflict with Section 9 of the Act of 2015, which specifically provides that the claim of juvenility can be raised even after disposal of the case.”
The Court referring to Vinod Katara v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 210, noted that in India, the factors like poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, indifference and inadequacy of the system often lead to there being no documentary proof of a person’s age. In such cases where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, often certain medical tests are resorted to forage determination in absence of the documents enumerated in Section 94 of the JJ Act. The rule allowing plea of juvenility to be raised at a considerably belated stage has its rationale in the contemporary child rights jurisprudence which requires the stakeholders to act in the best interest of the child.
The Court after perusing various judicial precedents and provisions observed that the application for juvenility was filed much prior to the conclusion of the trial and obviously prior to the disposal of the case. The accused was within his domain to file the application even at this stage of the trial and to be adjudicated on merit, as rightly done by the trial Court.
The Court held that,
“the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the trial or even at the appellate stage, as also before the Supreme Court in SLP, for the very first time.”
On the Yardsticks for Determining Juvenility
The Court noted that under Section 9 of the JJ Act courts are empowered to determine the age of juvenility, if the trial is pending before it. Further Section 94 of the JJ Act outlines the process for determining the age of a person in conflict with the law.
The Court noted that in a case pending trial, if an application is filed by a juvenile before a court claiming juvenility or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, the court is under a duty to make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary to determine the age of such person. Section 94 sets out the yardstick giving priority to the documents which can be safely relied upon during the enquiry for determining the age of the juvenile. The provision mandates that the court shall, in the absence of a birth certificate from a school or local authority, rely on the date of birth certificate from the matriculation or equivalent certificate. In the absence of all these, a birth certificate from a hospital or the anganwadi record is to be considered. Only in the absence of all these documents, the court may order a medical age determination.
Further, the scope of enquiry to be done has to be as provided under the JJ Act itself, not an enquiry as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972. The Court referring to Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750, noted that the enquiry should not be a roving enquiry to go behind each and every certificate to examine the correctness of those documents which are kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where these documents or certificate are rather found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, JJB or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination.
The Court referring to Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602, noted that the degree of proof required in a proceeding before the JJB, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when trial is before the criminal court concerned, is higher than when an enquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of offence is pending. The documents provided under Section 94 of the Act of 2015 shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court and based on aforesaid documents, a presumption of juvenility may be raised. However, presumption is not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and same may be rebutted by contra evidence led in by the opposite party. But the court should not take a hyper-technical approach when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the juvenility and if two views are possible, should lean in favour of the accused as juvenile.
The Court observed that the adjudication done by the Trial Court with regard to deciding the juvenility of the accused was based on cogent and material evidence and while placing much reliance upon the Adhaar card and the matriculation certificate, which by itself is a public document and acceptable as per Section 94 of the JJ Act.
On the Applicability of Res Judicata
The Court noted that the new documents exhibited during the trial, and the examination constituted a fresh cause of action for the accused. Therefore, the principle of res judicata was not an impediment and that the Trial Court’s decision to adjudicate the fresh claim was justified.
In the light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court observed that the revision petition was bereft of merit and upheld the order of the Trial Court.
[Ramesh Jaipal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/2025, decided on 27-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Divik Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Surenda Bishnoi, PP, R.S. Choudhary, Shaitan Singh