If age is under doubt, no benefit of juvenility to a person accused of a heinous crime, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that when an accused has committed a grave and heinous crime and there is a doubt regarding whether he is a juvenile or not, then the principle of benevolent legislation attached to Juvenile Justice Act will not apply..The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and RK Agarwal. Senior Advocate VK Appan appeared for the accused while Senior Advocate R Dash appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..By way of background, the accused was arrested for murder and produced before juvenile court. The accused sought to prove his juvenility by producing various school certificates. The Juvenile Justice Board was doubtful about the age recorded in various school certificates and sent the accused for a medical examination. The medical officer opined that the age of the accused is about 19 years..Based on the same, the case got transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused appealed against the same in the District and Sessions Court and High Court without success. He then moved the Supreme Court..The question before the court was whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is doubtful, the ossification test can be the last resort to prove the juvenility of the accused?.The Court held that when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence, he cannot be permitted to hide behind statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor..“It is no doubt true that if there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and the documentary evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he would be entitled to the special protection under the JJ Act. But when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice.”.The Court further held that only when there is prima facie evidence of minority, the principle of benevolent legislation attached to Juvenile Justice Act would apply. Most interestingly, the Court also stated that if an accused is involved in a grave and serious offence which reflects his maturity of mind and indicates that his plea of juvenility is to dodge the arms of law, then the principle of benevolent legislation cannot be allowed to come to his rescue..“The benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the JJ Act would thus apply to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue.”.The Parliament had recently amended the Juvenile Justice Act thereby allowing persons aged 16-18 years to be tried as adults for heinous offences. These amendments came about after public outcry following the Delhi gang rape of 2012.