XYZ versus ABHISHEIK & ANR

XYZ versus ABHISHEIK & ANR

The High Court erred in accepting the municipal birth certificate; the inquiry below found the matriculation and school records to be fabricated or unreliable and the District Medical Board opined that the accused's age was approximately 17–21 years, leading to the conclusion that the first respondent was not a juvenile. The High Court judgment of 22 August 2016 was set aside and the finding of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge rejecting juvenility was sustained.

Parties
Appellant: XYZ; Respondent: ABHISHEIK
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgments of the High Court dated 22 August 2016 set aside.
Legal Topics
Plea of Juvenility, Age Determination Enquiry, Fabrication of Documents, Medical Board Opinion, Revision Jurisdiction
Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act Criminal Law Evidence Child Sexual Offences Forensic Medical Examination Plea of Juvenility Age Determination Enquiry Fabrication of Documents +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XYZ

Appellant

ABHISHEIK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence
  2. 2 Whether the matriculation, school and municipal birth records relied on by the first respondent were genuine or fabricated
  3. 3 Whether a medical board opinion could be sought and relied upon for age determination once documentary evidence was found to be unreliable

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in accepting the municipal birth certificate; the inquiry below found the matriculation and school records to be fabricated or unreliable and the District Medical Board opined that the accused's age was approximately 17–21 years, leading to the conclusion that the first respondent was not a juvenile. The High Court judgment of 22 August 2016 was set aside and the finding of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge rejecting juvenility was sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgments of the High Court dated 22 August 2016 set aside.

Orders

  • Set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court dated 22 August 2016.
  • Sustain the report of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, rejecting the plea of juvenility.