School Transfer Certificate Should Not Be Considered As The Sole Basis For Determining Someone’s Age Under The JJ Act - SC

In a recent case, the Supreme Court made an important ruling concerning the determination of a person's age under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) in the matter of P Yuvaprakash vs State Rep by Inspector of Police. The Court emphasized that a school transfer certificate should not be considered as the sole basis for determining a person's age under the JJ Act.

According to Section 94 of the JJ Act, if there is a dispute regarding a person's age, especially in the context of them being a victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), certain specified documents must be relied upon. These documents include the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation/equivalent certificate from the relevant examination board. If such documents are unavailable, then the birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat should be considered. In cases where none of these documents are available, the person's age may be determined through an ossification test or other medically approved age determination tests.

In the specific case before the Court, it was found that the Madras High Court had erred in relying solely on a school transfer certificate while dismissing a doctor's opinion that the minor in question was 19 years old during the incident. As a result, the Court decided to overturn the conviction and sentence of the accused individual who was charged with sexually assaulting a minor girl and allegedly abetting their child marriage.

This ruling highlights the importance of using appropriate and reliable documents or medical tests when determining the age of a person under the Juvenile Justice Act, especially in cases related to child victims of sexual offenses.

The accused has been acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from jail by the top court. The case was initiated in 2015 when the family of a minor girl accused the appellant and his associates of kidnapping her and forcing her into marriage after multiple instances of sexual assault. During the trial, the girl initially told the Magistrate that she had willingly eloped with her lover, and the sexual acts were consensual. However, she later retracted her statement. The trial court found the appellant guilty under the POCSO Act. The Madras HC upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act but set aside the conviction under Section 366 IPC. The sentence was reduced from rigorous life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Supreme Court noted that none of the documents presented during the trial could be considered as "the date of birth certificate from the school" or "the matriculation or equivalent certificate" from the relevant examination board or certificates issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or Panchayat.

As per the JJ Act, in the absence of prescribed documents, the prosecution was required to establish the victim's age below 18 years through acceptable medical tests or examinations. The transfer certificate was deemed insufficient to prove the victim's age.