XYZversusABHISHEIK & ANR

420                       [2022]
               SUPREME COURT     14 S.C.R. 420
                              REPORTS                      [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A                                      XYZ
                                         v.
                              ABHISHEIK & ANR.
                    (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1408-1409 of 2022)
B                            SEPTEMBER 02, 2022
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
                        HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
             Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:
      s.7A – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,
C
      2007 – R.12(3)(b) – Plea of Juvenility – Appellant alleged that she
      was subjected to gang rape by the first respondent and other persons
      – FIR was registered on 24 July 2015, three to four months after the
      commission of offences – Plea of Juvenility – JMFC found that the
      matriculation certificate produced by the first respondent was
D     fabricated and therefore directed FIR to be filed against first
      respondent for intentionally using fabricated documents in judicial
      proceedings – Sessions Judge while conducting inquiry sought the
      opinion of the District Medical Board and based on the same
      concluded that the first respondent was not a juvenile on the date
      of the incident – The first respondent filed revision petition before
E
      High Court which was accepted – On appeal, held :During enquiry
      the mother of the first respondent stated that the first respondent
      had not studied beyond Class 9 and therefore did not appear for
      matriculation examinations – The matriculation certificate was found
      to be forged by the JMFC and in the absence of a matriculation
F     certificate, it was the birth certificate from the school first attended
      which could have been relied upon – Director of school and also
      relative of first respondent admitted that no document regarding
      date of birth of the first accused was filed at the stage of admission
      – The mother of the first respondent admitted in the cross-
      examination that the date of birth in the scholar register is wrong –
G
      In view of these circumstances, Sessions Judge was right in doubting
      the credibility of birth certificate obtained from school – The birth
      certificate issued by the Municipal Authority was not relied on by
      Sessions Judge as the documents were improperly maintained by
      the staff and were also found to be tampered – There is no valid
H     basis to discard the finding – It is evident from the report of the
                                        420
                    XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                421


medical board that first respondent was not a juvenile – The record        A
relied upon by the first respondent in support of the plea of juvenility
was fabricated – High Court erred in accepting the plea of juvenility
– Penal Code,1860 – ss. 193, 465, 466, 468, 471,363, 366A, 376,
506,120B – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012
– ss.3, 4.
                                                                           B
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD : 1. Rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules provides that
for the purposes of the ‘age determination enquiry’ of a child or
juvenile, evidence may be obtained by relying upon the following
documents: (i) matriculation or equivalent certificates; (ii) date         C
of birth certificate from school first attended; or (iii) birth
certificate given by corporation or municipal authority or
panchayat. At the end of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) the
rule uses the expression “and in the absence whereof”. In the
absence of any of the above three documents, medical opinion
could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board. [Para               D
19][430-C-D]
       2. The mother of the first respondent categorically stated
during the course of the enquiry that the first respondent had not
studied beyond Class 9, and therefore did not appear for his
matriculation examinations. The first respondent’s counsel                 E
submitted a matriculation certificate at the remand stage which
was found to be forged by the JMFC after inquiry. This was
specifically adverted to in the report of the 4th Additional Sessions
Judge. In the absence of a matriculation certificate, it was the
birth certificate from the school first attended which could have          F
been relied upon.The ‘scholar register’ produced by the school
mentions the date of birth of the first respondent as 30 June
1999. During the course of cross-examination, PW-4, who is the
Director of Guardian and Guide Public School, admitted that no
document regarding date of birth of the first accused was filed at
the stage of admission.The mother of the first respondent has              G
also admitted in the cross-examination that the date of birth in
the scholar register is wrong. Additionally, the occupation of the
first respondent’s father was initially mentioned as teacher, which
was later corrected to service. However, the mother of first
respondent has admitted during cross-examination that her                  H
422           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     husband was neither a teacher, nor did he do any service. It was
      also admitted that PW-4 is a relative of the first respondent. In
      view of the aforesaid circumstances, the 4th Additional Sessions
      Judge was right in doubting the credibility of birth certificate
      obtained from school. [Para 25 & 26][432-G-H; 433-B-E]
B           3. In terms of the order dated 18 April 2022 in these
      proceedings, a five-member committee was constituted by
      Municipal Corporation, Satna to search out the birth certificate
      of the first respondent. After due scrutiny, it has been found that
      there is no entry of registration bearing entry no. 1545 pertaining
      to the date 18 April 2002 and the last entry is entry no 1544.
C     Hence, it is apparent that the documents placed before the High
      Court by the first respondent in support of his claim of juvenility
      are fabricated and manipulated. In the circumstances, this Court
      finds that the High Court was in error in relying on a fabricated
      birth certificate issued by the municipal authority to determine
D     the juvenility of the first respondent. [Para 28 & 30][433-G-H;
      434-A-B]
            Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh
            (2012) 9 SCC 750 : [2012] 10 SCR 540; Abuzar
            Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 :
E           [2012] 9 SCR 244; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of
            Uttar Pradesh (2019) 12 SCC 370 : [2019] 9 SCR 735
            – relied on.
            Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC
            744 : [2016] 2 SCR 1089; Rishipal Singh Solanki v.
F           State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1079 -
            referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [2012] 10 SCR 540              relied on                Para 21
      [2012] 9 SCR 244               relied on                Para 22
G
      [2016] 2 SCR 1089              referred to              Para 23
      [2019] 9 SCR 735               relied on                Para 24


H
                     XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                     423


      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                           A
Nos. 1408-1409 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2016 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Principal seat at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.
278 of 2016 and Misc. Criminal Case No. 5495 of 2016.
        Aditya K. Dubey, Nitin Singh, Devvrat, Advs. for the Appellant.          B
      Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy AG, Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Nirmal
Kumar Abhastha, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Vipul Abhishek, Prakhar Srivastav,
Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                                 C
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
        1. Leave granted.
       2. The appeals arise from the judgments of a Single Judge of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 22 August 2016 in Criminal Revision           D
No 278 of 2016 and Misc Criminal Case No 5495 of 2016. The High
Court, while allowing a revision against the decision of the 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Satna dated 21 December 2015 came to the conclusion
that the first respondent was a juvenile on the date of the incident.We
hold, for the reasons to follow, that the High Court has erred in its findings
                                                                                 E
and that the plea of juvenilityof the first respondent is based on fabricated
documents.
       3. On 24 July 2015, FIR No. 433/2015 was registered on the basis
of information provided by the appellant at PS City Kotwali, Satna for
the commission of offences punishable under sections 363, 366A, 376,
506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 18601 and sections 3 and 4 of             F
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 20122. The
appellant, who was a minor at the time of commission of the offence,
alleged that she had been subjected to gang rape by the first respondent
and other persons. The alleged offence is stated to have taken place
about three to four months prior to the registration of the FIR on 24 July       G
2015.During the course of the investigation, the first respondent was
arrested along with other accused alleged to be involved in the commission
of the offences.
1
    “IPC”
2
    “POCSO Act”                                                                  H
424                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A            4. On 6 August 2015, the first respondent was produced before
      the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna3. The first
      respondent took the plea that he was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice
      (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20004 on the date of the alleged
      offence. The counsel appearing on his behalf filed an application for
      bail, together with a certificate purported to have been issued by the
B
      Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh pertaining to the
      appearance of the first respondent at the high school examination. The
      certificate indicated that the date of birth of the first respondent was 30
      January 1999.
             5. The JMFC conducted an inquiry and found that the certificate
C     produced by the first respondent was fabricated. Therefore, the JMFC
      directed the police to register FIR No. 292/2015 dated 20 August 2015
      in PS Civil Lines, Satna under sections 193, 465, 466, 468, and 471 of
      IPC against the first respondent for intentionally using fabricated
      documents in judicial proceedings.
D           6. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna was directed to
      conduct an inquiry by an order dated 4 September 2015 of the Sessions
      Judge. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge conducted an inquiry, during
      the course of which the statements of witnesses were recorded. An
      inquiry report dated 21 December 2015 was submitted to the Sessions
E     Judge. The inquiry report arrived at a specific finding that:
               (i)      PW-1 Maya Singh, the mother of the first respondent, had
                        stated that the first respondent had not appeared for any
                        examination after class 9;
               (ii)     The forged matriculation mark sheet was produced on behalf
F                       of the accused at the stage of the remand;
               (iii)    The first school which was alleged to have been attended
                        by the first respondent was being conducted by a relative;
               (iv)     The admission form was not available in the school and the
                        month of the birth had been incorrectly recorded; and
G
               (v)      The extract from the birth register was found to be
                        interpolated and there were no signatures of a competent
                        officer on the corrections and overwriting.
      3
          “JMFC”
H     4
          “2000 Act”
                    XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                       425
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

        7. Due to the non-availability of a document confirming the age of        A
the first respondent, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge decided to seek a
medical opinion in accordance with rule 12(3)(b) ofthe Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 20075. Accordingly, the 4th
Additional Sessions Judge sought the opinion of the District Medical
Board, which examined the first respondent. The District Medical Board
                                                                                  B
opined that the approximate age of the first respondent was between 17
to 21 years based on medical evidence and literature. The 4th Additional
Sessions Judge calculated the approximate age of the first respondent as
19 years. Thus, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion
that the first respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident.
       8. In the meantime, the police completed the investigation in FIR          C
No. 433/2015 and submitted a chargesheet before the competent court
dated 02 November 2015 against the first respondent and six other co-
accused persons for offences punishable under sections 363, 366,
376(2)(vi), 120-B and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, the police also completed
the investigation in FIR No. 292/2015 and filed a charge sheet dated 03           D
December 2015 against the first respondent and his counsel for offences
punishable under sections 193, 465, 466, 468, 471, and 120B of IPC.
       9. The first respondent moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
in a criminal revision against the report of the 4th Additional Sessions
Judge dated 21 December 2015. The Single Judge, by an order dated 22              E
August 2016, allowed the revision and accepted the plea of the first
respondent that he was a juvenile at the time of the lodging of the FIR on
24 July 2015.
       10. In support of the above conclusion, the High Court observed
that a matriculation or equivalent certificate, if it is available, and, in its   F
absence the date of birth from the school first attended would have to be
accepted in the determination as to whether the first respondent was a
juvenile on the date of the incident. The High Court has proceeded on
the basis that the first respondent was admitted to Class 1 where his
date of birth is mentioned as 30 June 1999, which was corroborated by
PW-4, the Director of Guardian and Guide Public School, Satna. The                G
High Court noted that the birth certificate issued by the Municipal
Corporation on 18 April 2002 indicated the date of birth as 30 January
1999. In this context, the High Court has held:

5
    “2007 Rules”                                                                  H
426             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A             “17.As per birth and death register à certificate was issued by
              dispatch No.284 on 18.4.2002 in regard to birth of Abhisheik Singh
              which is recorded as 30.1.1999 at S. No.1545. Copy of the
              certificate is filed as Ex. À. 7. The same was issued with the
              signature and seal of Harimangal Singh, Registrar, Birth and Death,
              Municipal Corporation, Satna. These two documents have been
B
              discarded by the trial Court on the ground that the Director of
              Guardian and Guide School Mr. Chandra Mouliya is related to
              family of the accused. The admission form of the accused is not
              available in the record. The trial Court has also discarded the
              certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation on the ground that
C             there is some overlapping in the register. It is further observed by
              the trial Court that certificate was issued after a period of two
              years and Municipal Corporation was not eligible to issue certificate
              after aperiod of two years. The trial Court has not considered the
              fact that certificate was issued in the year 2002 much prior to the
              date of incident. The report of the offence was lodged at the
D             concerning P.S. on 24.7.2015.”
              11. The High Court noted that the birth certificate issued by the
      Municipal Corporation in 2002 was valid as it was signed by the competent
      authority and was accompanied by a dispatch number, namely, entry no.
      1545. The High Court observed that there was no reason for the accused
E     to obtain a false document in 2002 for an incident which took place in
      2015. Further, the High Court noted that the trial court has not recorded
      any finding that the birth certificate is forged or that it is not genuine. On
      this basis, the High Court reversed the findings of the 4th Additional
      Sessions Judge, Satna in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
F             12. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 15 December 2016.
      During the course of the hearing, an order was passed on 18 April 2022
      in the following terms:
              “1 In order to enable the Court to form a correct view on the
              issue of juvenility, it is necessary that the State of Madhya Pradesh
              produces the original record of the Municipal Corporation, Satna
G             pertaining to the alleged birth certificate of the accused Abhisheik
              Singh.
              2 The Standing Counsel shall communicate the aforesaid direction
              and call the original record which shall be produced before this
              Court within a period of four weeks.
H             3 List the Special Leave Petitions on 17 May 2022.”
                 XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                     427
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       13. In pursuance of the above directions, an affidavit has been       A
filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Satna. The affidavit indicates that a committee
of five officials was constituted on 16 May 2022 to retrieve the records.
A report has been submitted on 30 May 2022 by the five-
membercommittee. The relevant part of the report is in the following
                                                                             B
terms:




                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




      14. The translation of the relevant paragraph is extracted below:
                                                                             G
      “[…] On the basis of the aforesaid information the record kept in
      the Birth-Death Branch (Registration Booklet of April, 2002 and
      May, 2002) is submitted by the present clerk Sh. Rishi Kumar.
      Upon perusal of record it is found that the registration No. 1545
      dated 18.04.2002 submitted before the court is not found marked
      in the register. The last entry made in the available record for the   H
428            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A           month of April 2002 is 1544 and the registration booklet and the
            issuing register for the next month of May, 2002 is also not available
            in the office. This information is given by Clerk Sh. Rishi Kumar
            Patel posted in Birth-Death branch.”
             15. While setting aside the report of the 4th Additional Sessions
B     Judge, the High Court has placed reliance on the extract from the birth
      register according to which the entry pertaining to the date of birth of
      the first respondent dated 30 January 1999 at entryno. 1545 has been
      adverted to. Upon inquiry, as the above extract indicates, it has emerged
      that there is no entry at entryno. 1545 dated 18 April 2002 in the birth
      register pertaining to the month of April 2002. The 4th Additional Sessions
C     Judge conducted a detailed inquiry on the plea of juvenility. The report
      of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge contains cogent reasons for coming
      to the conclusion that a fabricated record was produced in support of
      the plea of juvenility.
             16. In a counter filed on behalf of the first respondent, it was
D     submitted that the trial court could not have sought the opinion of the
      medical board under rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules without giving a clear
      finding against the birth certificate and the school certificate produced
      before it. It was urged that the birth certificate issued by the Municipal
      Corporation in 2002 is a valid document. Further, it was urged that the
E     entry in the register of the school in which the first respondent was
      admitted to the first standard mentioning the first respondent’s date of
      birth as 30 June 1999 has been corroborated by a competent witness –
      the Director of Guardian and Guide Public School, Satna.
             17. Before proceeding with our analysis, it is necessary to consider
F     the relevant legal provisions. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
      of Children) Act, 2015 is a sequel to the now repealed 2000 Act. Section
      7-A of the 2000 Act provided the procedure to be followed when a claim
      of juvenility is raised before any court:
            “7-A Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is
G           raised before any court:
            (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a
            court is of opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the
            date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry,
            take such evidence as may be necessary (but not on affidavit) so
            as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding
H
                     XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                       429
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as    A
         nearly may be:
         Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court
         and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of
         the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the
         provisions contained in this Act and the Rules made thereunder,           B
         even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of
         commencement of this Act.
         (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of
         commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward
         the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the          C
         sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no
         effect.”
        18. Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules provides the procedure for
determining the age by a court or by the Juvenile Justice Board 6. The
rule is extracted below:                                                           D
         “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age – (1)
         (2) * * *
         (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with
         law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court
         or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking             E
         evidence by obtaining -
         (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and
         in the absence whereof;
         (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play
                                                                                   F
         school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
         (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal
         authority or a panchayat;
         (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a)
         above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted         G
         Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child.
         In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or
         the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons
         to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit
6
    “Board”                                                                        H
430               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A              to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side
               within the margin of one year.
               and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into
               consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical
               opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age
B              and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses a(i), (ii),
               (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be conclusive proof
               of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”
             19. Rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules provides that for the purposes
      of the ‘age determination enquiry’ of a child or juvenile, evidence may
C     be obtained by relying upon the following documents: (i) matriculation or
      equivalent certificates; (ii) date of birth certificate from school first
      attended; or (iii) birth certificate given by corporation or municipal
      authority or panchayat. At the end of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause
      (a) the rule uses the expression “and in the absence whereof”. Moreover,
      in the absence of any of the abovementioned three documents, medical
D     opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board.
               20. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh7 a
      two-judge bench of this Court considered the provisions of Section 7-A of
      the 2000 Act along with rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules. The court held
      that it is only in cases where the documents stipulated under rule 12(3)(a)
E     are found to be fabricated or manipulated thatthe court or the Board may
      direct a medical examination for age determination. The Court further laid
      down the guidelines for conducting the age determination inquiry:
               “32. ”Age determination inquiry” contemplated under Section 7-
               A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the
F              court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain
               the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in
               the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the
               court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school
               first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of
G              matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate
               from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth
               certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a
               panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The
               question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted
      7
H         (2012) 9 SCC 750
                    XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                         431
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are              A
         unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done,
         then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered
         necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering
         his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.”
       21. Thereafter, in Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal8 a                 B
three-judge bench of this Court observed that the credibility and
acceptability of the documents stipulated under rule 12(3)(a) would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and
fast rule as such could be laid down. The court held:
         “39.3. As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court            C
         and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be
         catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be
         given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to
         raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in
         Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima
         facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent            D
         necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement
         recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may
         not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of
         juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the
         documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters’               E
         list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts
         and circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule
         can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted
         or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh [(2009) 7 SCC 415 : (2009) 3
         SCC (Cri) 431] and Pawan [(2009) 15 SCC 259 : (2010) 2 SCC
         (Cri) 522] these documents were not found prima facie credible             F
         while in Jitendra Singh [(2010) 13 SCC 523 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
         857] the documents viz. school leaving certificate, marksheet and
         the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry
         and verification of the appellant’s age. If such documents prima
         facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such         G
         documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry
         for determination of the age of the delinquent.”
                                                          (emphasis supplied)

8
    (2012) 10 SCC 489                                                               H
432             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A            22. The decision in Abuzar Hossain (supra) has been considered
      in successive decisions of this Court. In Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar
      Pradesh9 a two-judge bench of this Court held that an enquiry for the
      determination of the age of a juvenile is permissible if there is any doubt
      or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused. In this case, the
      Board disregarded date of birth of the accused recorded by the school
B
      on the ground that it was based on a forged transfer certificate. This
      Court did not find any illegality in the decision of the Board. The court
      observed that courts should be wary of adopting a casual or cavalier
      approach while deciding the juvenility of an accused in circumstances
      where a grave and heinous offence is committed.
C            23. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh10 this
      Court was called upon to decide the credibility and authenticity of a
      matriculation certificate for the purpose of an age determination enquiry
      of the accused. This Court observed that the matriculation certificate
      provided by the Central Board of Secondary Education was purely on
D     the basis of records maintained by the Senior Secondary School, where
      the accused was a student from Class 5 to Class 10. It emerged that the
      records maintained by the school were without any underlying documents.
      The court held that the plea of juvenility could not be accepted because
      there was clear and unimpeachable evidence as to the date of birth of
      the accused which had been recorded in the records of another school.
E
             24. In another recent decision in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State
      of Uttar Pradesh11, this Court wastasked to decide the credibility of
      the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of High School and
      Intermediate Examination, Uttar Pradesh. The Court upheld the credibility
      of the matriculation certificate on the ground that the date of birth recorded
F     in the matriculation certificate was corroborated by school admission
      records. Further, it was observed that no other document indicated that
      the date of birth of the accused was contrary to what was indicated in
      the matriculation certificate.
            25. In the present case,the mother of the first respondent
G     categorically stated during the course of the enquiry that the first
      respondent had not studied beyond Class 9, and therefore did not appear
      for his matriculation examinations. The first respondent’s counsel
      9
        (2016) 12 SCC 744
      10
         (2019) 12 SCC 370
H     11
         2021 SCC OnLine SC 1079
                  XYZ v. ABHISHEIK & ANR.                                        433
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

submitted a matriculation certificate at the remand stage which was              A
found to be forged by the JMFC after inquiry. This was specifically
adverted to in the report of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge. In the
absence of a matriculation certificate, it was the birth certificate from
the school first attended which could have been relied upon.
        26. The first respondent’s mother stated that the first respondent       B
was admitted to Class 1 of Guardian and Guide Public School, Satna.
The ‘scholar register’produced by the school mentions the date of birth
of the first respondent as 30 June 1999. During the course of cross-
examination, PW-4, who is the Director of Guardian and Guide Public
School, admitted that no document regarding date of birth of the first
accused was filed at the stage of admission. The mother of the first             C
respondent has also admitted in the cross-examination that the date of
birth in the scholar register is wrong. Additionally, the occupation of the
first respondent’s father was initially mentioned as teacher, which was
later corrected to service. However, the mother of first respondent has
admitted during cross-examination that her husband was neither a teacher,        D
nor did he do any service. It was also admitted that PW-4 is a relative of
the first respondent. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the 4th
Additional Sessions Judge was right in doubting the credibility of birth
certificate obtained from school.
        27. In the absence of a credible birth certificate from school, the      E
4th Additional Sessions Judge examined the birth certificate given by the
municipal authority. The birth certificate issued by the municipal authority
is dated 18 April 2002 under entry no. 1545 wherein the date of birth of
the first respondent is mentioned as 30 January 1999. The 4th Additional
Sessions Judge doubted the credibility of the birth certificate issued by
the municipal authority because the documents were improperly                    F
maintained by the staff and were also found to be tampered. It was
found that the birth register was interpolated and there were no signatures
of the competent authority on the corrections and overwriting. The 4th
Additional Sessions Judge has specifically adverted to the reasons for
doubting the genuineness of the birth certificate issued by the municipal        G
authority. There is no valid basis to discard the finding.
       28. In terms of the order dated 18 April 2022 in these proceedings,
a five-member committee was constituted by Municipal Corporation,
Satna to search out the birth certificate of the first respondent. After
due scrutiny, it has been found that there is no entry of registration bearing   H
434             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     entry no. 1545 pertaining to the date 18 April 2002 and the last entry is
      entry no 1544. Hence, it is apparent that the documents placed before
      the High Courtby the first respondent in support of his claim of juvenility
      are fabricated and manipulated. In the circumstances, we find that the
      High Court was in error in relying on a fabricated birth certificate issued
      by the municipal authority to determine the juvenility of the first
B
      respondent.
             29. The finding which was arrived at by the 4th Additional Sessions
      Judge, Satna was borne out from the record of the inquiry conducted.
      The High Court has manifestly erred in reversing that conclusion and
      entering a finding of juvenility. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
C     of Madhya Pradesh has, it may be noted, also drawn the attention of the
      Court to the report of the medical board. It is evident from the report of
      the medical board that the first respondent was not a juvenile. The entire
      record which was sought to be relied upon by the first respondent in
      support of the plea of juvenility was fabricated. The High Court has
D     erred in accepting the plea of juvenility.
             30. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgments of the High
      Court dated 22 August 2016. The report of the 4th Additional Sessions
      Judge, Satna, rejecting the plea of juvenility shall accordingly stand
      sustained.
E            31. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
           32. The name of the appellant shall be redacted and reflected as
      ‘XYZ’ in the record.
             33. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
F
      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeals allowed.
      (Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)




G




H