'Declaration Of Being A Juvenile Plainly Improper': SC Directs Man To Be Tried As Major In Murder Case
Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad HC judgment, which upheld in 2016 an order by the Muzaffarnagar court declaring Devi Singh as a ‘juvenile’.
Published : August 1, 2025 at 11:01 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said that when the school is not a government one, the records maintained by it would not be considered as ‘public documents’, while setting aside an order declaring a man as a juvenile in a murder case.
A bench comprising justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that though the certificate issued by the first school attended by the accused recorded his date of birth as April 18, 1995, the family register maintained under the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, recorded his year of birth as 1991.
The bench said, having bestowed anxious thoughts on the issue, “we find that the approach adopted by the trial court as well as the high court was not proper”.
The apex court decided to set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment of March 29, 2016, which upheld an order by the Muzaffarnagar court declaring Devi Singh as a ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
“Though the issue of juvenility, indubitably and primarily has to be determined as per the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as applicable at the relevant time, yet under appropriate circumstances and with justifiable reasons, the court examining the issue has the discretion to take other relevant materials and factors into account, for ultimately the cause of justice has to prevail”, said the bench.
The bench said the first school certificate issued by Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon, where the accused was admitted in Class V, records his date of birth as April 18, 1995. “Pausing here, it is also relevant to indicate that the headmaster of the said school, while deposing, has stated that this birth-date entry was made only on an oral representation by the accused's father”, said the bench.
The bench noted that four certificates have been produced from schools based on the certificates issued by the first attended school, Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon, which recorded his date of birth as April 18, 1995.
The bench said there is no dispute on the factum that Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon – the first attended school – is not a government school and thus, the records maintained by the said school would not be ‘public documents’. “Moreover, the headmaster/principal of such a school cannot be said to be a ‘public servant’ for the Evidence Act.
The headmaster, when examined, has himself taken the stand that Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon was only a State Government-recognised school”, said the bench.
The bench said neither the headmaster/principal of the first attended school nor its records would qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’ respectively.
The apex court declined to entertain the claim of juvenility on the basis of a school certificate. Appellant, Suresh, whose brother was killed, provided the family register under UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 disclosing the year of birth of the accused as 1991.
The appellant also produced a voters' list for the legislative assembly of 2012 and the report by a medical officer, stating that he was found to be 20-21 years on the date of the incident of August 31, 2011.
"It is clear that the accused cannot be said to have been a ‘juvenile’ on the date of the unfortunate incident," the bench said. The bench cited Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which laid down a sequential list of certificates to be examined in such cases.
The apex court noted that in the present case, a serious allegation was made that on the exhortation of his father, the accused, along with his father, forcibly took the deceased Rajesh inside their house, whereafter he took out a country-made pistol and shot the deceased, resulting in his death.
“The declaration of Respondent No.2 (accused) as a ‘juvenile’ being plainly improper, the impugned order as well as the order dated May 19, 2015, of the trial court holding the Respondent No.2 to be a ‘juvenile’ are hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is held to have been a major as on the date of commission of the alleged offence and liable to be tried as a major…”, said the bench.
The bench said the trial court is directed to conclude the trial on a priority basis, ensuring that the same is taken to its logical conclusion, latest by the end of July 2026. The bench directed the accused to appear before the trial court within three weeks.
Read more
