Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Sant Roop Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 October, 2015

Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Uday Umesh Lalit

     SLP(Crl) No. 5140 of 2015


     ITEM NO.14                           COURT NO.7                   SECTION IIB

                                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                 No.   5140/2015

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/11/2014
     in CRAD No. 812/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
     at Chandigarh)

     SANT ROOP SINGH                                                    Petitioner(s)

                                                  VERSUS

     STATE OF PUNJAB                                                    Respondent(s)

     (With prayer for interim relief and office report)


     Date : 05/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

     For Petitioner(s)                Mr. R.K. Talwar, Adv.
                                      Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, A.O.R.
                                      Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)                Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AAG
                                      Mr. Saurabh Singhal, Adv.
                                      Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, Adv.


                            UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                              O R D E R

In this Special Leave petition while dismissing the Special Leave Petition qua petitioner No. 2, in our order dated 13th July, 2015, notice was issued relating to the first petitioner confining to the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by question regarding his claim of juvenile status on Kalyani Gupta Date: 2015.10.08 17:40:46 IST Reason: the date of occurrence.

According to the second petitioner, on 28th June, 1999, the date of occurrence, the second petitioner was aged 16 Years 3 Months and 11 Days.

In support of the said claim he seeks to rely upon the birth certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth and Death, dated nil. By virtue of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and having regard to our judgments one of which reported in Abuzar Hossain Alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489, a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under in paras 39.1, 39.2, 39.3 and 48:-

39.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised first time before this Court as well after the final disposal of the case.

The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in the appeal court.

39.2 For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.

39.3 As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)

(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh v. State of West Bengal (2000) 7 SCC 415 and Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259 these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 13 SCC 523 the documents viz. School leaving certificate, mark sheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent.

48. If one were to adopt a wooden approach, one could say nothing short of a certificate, whether from the school or a municipal authority would satisfy the court's conscience, before directing PAGE NO. 3 of 5 SLP(Crl) No. 5140 of 2015 an enquiry. But, then directing an enquiry is not the same thing as declaring the accused to be a juvenile. The standard of proof required is different for both. In the former, the court simply records a prima facie conclusion. In the latter, the court makes a declaration on evidence, that it scrutinises and accepts only if it si worthy of such acceptance. The approach at the stage of directing the enquiry has of necessity to be more liberal, lest, there is avoidable miscarriage of justice. Suffice it to say that while affidavits may not be generally accepted as a good enough basis for directing for an enquiry, that they are not so accepted is not a rule of law but a rule of prudence. The Court would, therefore, in each case weight the relevant factors, insist upon filing of better affidavits if the need so arises, and even direct, any additional considered relevant including the information regarding the age of the parents, the age of siblings and the like, to be furnished before it decides on a case to case basis whether or not an enquiry under Section 7-A ought to be conducted. It will eventually depend on how the court evaluates such material for a prima facie conclusion that the court may or may not direct an enquiry.” In the light of the said dictum, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered by directing the learned Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry giving an opportunity to the petitioner to establish that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence namely, 28th June, 1999 and consequently he is PAGE NO. 4 of 5 SLP(Crl) No. 5140 of 2015 entitled for the benefits under Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State is also present after notice. Having heard counsel for the respondent-State, we direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to hold an inquiry and permit the petitioner herein to place all materials apart from summoning any records which he seeks to rely upon from the school authorities or other authorities and also give equal opportunity to the prosecuting agency to rebutt whatever material evidence both oral and documentary which the petitioner seeks to rely after holding such inquiry. Learned Single Judge is directed to submit his report. We direct the learned Single Judge to carry out the above said exercise and file his Report within three months.

List this matter after three months along with the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for passing final orders.

                  [KALYANI GUPTA]                                    [SHARDA KAPOOR]
                    COURT MASTER                                       COURT MASTER



PAGE NO. 5 of 5