Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court held that the appellant was a minor at the time of commission of offence and the Court laid down the procedure for determining the age of the person at the time of commission of offence. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge Bench consisting of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan. 

Facts   

• The appellant was born on 18th June 1989, in Village Dadheru Kala, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. according to his claim. 
• His educational records show attendance at Nehru Preparatory School (5th July 1994-20th May 1998) and National High School Dadheru (4th July 1998 onwards) with the same date of birth (18th June 1989). 
• On 4th June 2007, an FIR was lodged against the appellant and three others for offences under Sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (murder and attempted murder). 
• On 12th June 2007, the appellant's mother applied to the Juvenile Justice Board claiming he was a minor at the time of the alleged offense. 
• On 24th January 2008, the Juvenile Justice Board declared the appellant a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 
• The victim's wife appealed this decision to the Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed the appeal and set aside the Juvenile Justice Board's order on 13th January 2009. 
• The appellant then filed Criminal Revision No. 716 of 2009 before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's judgment. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the appellant was a minor at the time of commission of the offence? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court determined that the appellant's date of birth was 18th June 1989, making him a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence on 4th June 2007. 
• The Court found that the mark sheet from National High School and the School Leaving Certificate from Nehru Preparatory School, both recording the same date of birth (18th June 1989), constitute valid proof for age determination. 
• The Court ruled that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules gives preference to school certificates over medical reports when determining age, and medical opinion should be sought only when educational certificates are not available. 
• The Court concluded that the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court committed grave errors by ignoring the date of birth mentioned in the appellant's educational documents, which was contrary to the Juvenile Justice Rules. 
• The Court upheld the initial decision of the Juvenile Justice Board which had correctly accepted the school records as valid evidence of the appellant's age. 
• The Court noted that the appellant's mother's sworn testimony corroborated his academic records regarding his date of birth. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 13th January 2009 and the High Court dated 10th December 2010, declaring the appellant to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and declared the appellant to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, reinstating the Juvenile Justice Board's original finding. 
• This landmark judgment established that educational records like mark sheets and school leaving certificates take precedence over medical opinions in determining the age of an accused for juvenile justice purposes. 

[Original Judgment]