The Supreme Court has firmly rejected the juvenile plea of Vinod Katara, involved in a murder case dating back over four decades. The court’s ruling emphasized the paramount importance of the school-issued date of birth certificate in age determination, placing it above other methods such as the ossification test. This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on the credibility of different forms of evidence in determining age, particularly in criminal cases involving claims of juvenility.
Also Read- Supreme Court To Decide On NEET MDS 2024 Postponement (lawchakra.in)
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was at the forefront of this significant ruling. They dismissed the writ petition by Vinod Katara, who argued that he was a juvenile at the time of committing the murder on September 10, 1982. The justices clarified the legal framework surrounding age determination, stating,
“Section 94(2) of the JJ Act provides for the mode of determination of age. In the order of priorities, the date of birth certificate from the school stands at the highest pedestal whereas ossification test has been kept at the last rung to be considered, only in the absence of the criteria Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., in absence of both certificate from school and birth certificate issued by a Corporation/Municipal Authority/Panchayat.”
The narrative of this case traces back to 1986 when Katara, along with three others, was found guilty by the trial court. Despite his appeals being dismissed by the High Court in 2016, and the Supreme Court affirming this decision, Katara sought to reopen the case under the guise of juvenility. This plea was part of a broader scrutiny initiated by the High Court in 2012, which ordered inquiries into cases with potential juvenile convicts at the time of the offence.
The twist in Katara’s tale came when a medical board, upon examination, estimated his age to be 56 years as of December 10, 2021. This finding led him to claim juvenility at the time of the murder. However, the subsequent inquiry led by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Agra, based on “contemporaneous evidence,” concluded that Katara was indeed an adult at the time of the crime, with his date of birth being July 2, 1960.
Also Read- Manipur Violence Row| SC Calls For Detailed Report From CBI,NIA And State (lawchakra.in)
The defense faced a significant challenge as they argued against the reliability of school records and alleged discrepancies in the family register. However, their arguments fell short as the state counsel defended the thoroughness of the inquiry process, which confirmed the school records’ accuracy.
The Supreme Court’s examination led to a decisive conclusion, highlighting the inquiry’s findings and dismissing the claims of document forgery as baseless. The bench stated,
“Having minutely perused the inquiry report and the evidence led during the inquiry, we are of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the Additional District and Sessions Judge that the actual date of birth of the accused petitioner is July 2, 1960 and the opinion of the Medical Board that estimation of age based on X-ray examination becomes uncertain after 25 years is apropos and deserves to be accepted.”
This ruling not only reaffirms the legal standards for age determination in India but also sets a precedent for future cases involving claims of juvenility. It highlights the judiciary’s commitment to a meticulous evaluation of evidence, ensuring that justice is served while upholding the principles of fairness and accuracy in the legal process.
