Yardstick To Ascertain Juvenility Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Courts Should Favour Accused In Borderline Cases: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court held that while undertaking an enquiry in relation to claim of juvenility of an accused, the standard need not be like a trial where the juvenility had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, rather if two views are possible, the Court should lean towards holding in favour of the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah further clarified that if the documentary evidence mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) were placed on record, they were to be considered relevant unless those were shown to be fabricated or manipulated.

“…if so called documents are available, then there is no requirement for the Court, the board or the committee to go for medical test for age determination. The question is thus answered accordingly.”

As per Section 94, first priority needs to be given to the birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate from the concerned Examination Board, and thereafter to the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. In case of non-availability of these, ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test could be conducted.

The Court was hearing a challenge against the order of the trial court that had allowed application of the accused-respondent to be treated as a juvenile in a POCSO Case.

It was the case of the petitioner that firstly, the application was filed for the third time, after being withdrawn at earlier two occasions, and that too at a belated stage when the trial was almost complete. Hence, it was barred by res-judicata and anyways was not maintainable at such a stage of the trial.

Secondly, it was submitted that the application has been allowed based on the matriculation certificate and the Aadhaar card which could not have been treated as conclusive, especially when the basis on which the age was recorded in the matriculation certificate was not clear.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent argued that the age certificate produced by the prosecution was forged since the father's signature on that was in English whereas the father of accused used to sign only in Hindi.

After hearing the contentions, the Court determined the yardstick to be adopted by the Court while deciding the issue of juvenility and held that for the scope of enquiry and procedure for determining age of the juvenile, Section 9 of the Act had to be referred to, read with Section 94.

A combined reading of both revealed that the enquiry to be undertaken had to be as the one provided under the Act itself and not an enquiry by the Trial Court like a regular trial or an enquiry under BNSS. Reference was made to certain Supreme Court precedents, and it was held,

“…the enquiry should not be roving enquiry to go behind each and every certificate to examine the correctness of those documents which are kept during the normal course of business and has further clarified that only in cases where these documents or certificate are rather found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court, Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination….Degree of proof required in a proceeding before the Juvenile Justice Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when trial is before the criminal court concerned, is higher than when an enquiry is made by a Court before which the case regarding the commission of offence is pending…”

In this background, the Court perused the material on record, and opined that the documents put forth by the prosecution were not proven, rather the matriculation certificate, Aadhaar card and other school documents were sufficiently proven by the respondent. Matriculation certificate itself was a sufficient proof of his age since there was no averment of it being forged.

Furthermore, while denying the argument of the application being filed at a belated stage, the Court held that the very purpose of the Act would be defeated if the child in conflict with law was not permitted to raise the ground of juvenility at the fag end of the trial or even subsequent thereto. Such conclusion would directly contradict Section 9 of the Act.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.

Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 299

Click Here To Read/Download Order