The chronicle that follows bears the imprint of legal intricacies and temporal depth. The Supreme Court, with a resolute stance, has accorded primacy to the date of birth certificate issued by the school over the ossification test. This adjudication unfolded in the dismissal of a plea asserting juvenility from a man embroiled in a murder accusation spanning over four decades. Vinod Katara, the petitioner, found himself entangled in legal turmoil when, in January 1986, he and three co-accused received a murder conviction from the trial court—a verdict contested in the hallowed halls of the Allahabad High Court.
Amidst the appellate proceedings, the petitioner’s sentence faced suspension, granting him release on bail. However, the appellate journey reached its denouement in March 2016, affirming the conviction and reinstating the trial court’s sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner faced incarceration following the apex court’s dismissal of his appeal in August 2016. The High Court’s directive to the Juvenile Justice Board to ascertain the convicts’ ages led to a medical evaluation, determining the petitioner’s age to be approximately 56 years.
Relying on the medical board’s report, the petitioner approached the apex court, asserting that he was a mere 15 years old on the fateful day of September 10, 1982. He sought the state’s intervention to validate his claim of juvenility and issue appropriate orders based on the circumstances. The apex court, in September 2022, tasked the Agra sessions court with scrutinizing the claim in accordance with the law. Following an inquiry, the Additional District and Sessions judge concluded that the petitioner had attained majority at the time of the incident.
In a decree rendered on March 5, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petitioner’s plea, emphasizing the hierarchy set forth in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act. According to this hierarchy, the school-issued date of birth certificate holds paramount significance, relegating the ossification test to a last-resort consideration, applicable only in the absence of the first two criteria: school certificate and a birth certificate from a recognized authority.
The apex court concurred with the Sessions Judge’s determination, endorsing the petitioner’s actual date of birth as July 2, 1960. The Medical Board’s stance, asserting the uncertainty of age estimation through X-ray examination after 25 years, found resonance with the court. The Sessions Judge’s meticulous scrutiny of pre-secondary school records affirmed the petitioner’s recorded birth date of July 2, 1960.
Championing the reliability of the school records, the apex court refuted the petitioner’s plea, dismissing the family register as a forged and unreliable document. The petitioner’s counsel, advocating for the family register and a medical report dated December 10, 2021, faced staunch opposition from Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, the additional advocate general of Uttar Pradesh.
In the crucible of legal discourse, the inquiry report submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge stood as a formidable rebuttal to the petitioner’s claims, as vehemently asserted by the state’s representative.