Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. (2022)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that an application for claiming juvenility is governed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It is held that if the Juvenile Justice Board has Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence.
It is held that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases to give benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law while maintaining caution that such liberty is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the JJ Rules, 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised.
33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
