RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Matriculation certificate and corroborating school admission records showing respondent no.2's date of birth as 25.09.2004, together with verification from the Regional Office of the Intermediate Education Council, were not rebutted by any contrary evidence; under section 94(2)-(3) JJ Act, 2015 the JJ Board properly undertook age determination and its recorded age is to be deemed the true age for purposes of the Act; hence respondent no.2 was a juvenile on 05.05.2020 and the orders declaring him a juvenile delinquent were rightly upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Rishipal Singh Solanki; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Accused / Respondent: Nishant Solanki @ Nishu (Respondent No.2); Guardian / Respondent: Respondent No.3 (mother and natural guardian of Respondent No.2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No.1240 of 2021 / Appeal Against High Court Order (criminal Revision No.430 of 2021) Decided by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Determination of Age, Presumption of Juvenility Under Section 94 JJ Act, 2015, Matriculation Certificate and School Records as Evidence, Ossification/medical Age Tests, Procedure for Raising Claim of Juvenility, Burden and Standard of Proof
Juvenile Justice Criminal Law Evidence Law Determination of Age Presumption of Juvenility Under Section 94 JJ Act, 2015 Matriculation Certificate and School Records as Evidence Ossification/medical Age Tests Procedure for Raising Claim of Juvenility +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rishipal Singh Solanki

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent

Nishant Solanki @ Nishu (Respondent No.2)

Accused / Respondent

Respondent No.3 (mother and natural guardian of Respondent No.2)

Guardian / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No.1240 of 2021 / Appeal Against High Court Order (criminal Revision No.430 of 2021) Decided by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matriculation certificate and school records sufficed to establish that respondent no.2 was a juvenile on the date of the incident under section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015
  2. 2 What is the evidentiary weight of school/matriculation records under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  3. 3 Whether an ossification/medical test can be the sole criterion for age determination

Ratio Decidendi

Matriculation certificate and corroborating school admission records showing respondent no.2's date of birth as 25.09.2004, together with verification from the Regional Office of the Intermediate Education Council, were not rebutted by any contrary evidence; under section 94(2)-(3) JJ Act, 2015 the JJ Board properly undertook age determination and its recorded age is to be deemed the true age for purposes of the Act; hence respondent no.2 was a juvenile on 05.05.2020 and the orders declaring him a juvenile delinquent were rightly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order dated 11.11.2020 of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring respondent no.2 a juvenile delinquent upheld
  • Judgment of the District and Sessions Judge and order of the High Court (12.03.2021) dismissing criminal revision upheld