The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. is a significant pronouncement on the determination of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, especially when conflicting evidence arises. The Court set aside the finding of juvenility recorded by both the trial court and the High Court and directed the respondent-accused to face trial as an adult in a murder case.
This judgment reiterates the importance of corroborative documentary evidence, medical reports, and judicial discretion in matters concerning the age of an accused in heinous crimes.
Case Title: Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.:347 of 2018
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Date of Judgment: August 01, 2025
Background and Brief Facts
The case arose out of a tragic incident on 31 August 2011, wherein the appellant Suresh alleged that his paternal uncle Lillu Singh and cousin Devi Singh (Respondent No. 2) entered his house forcibly when only his wife was present. When restrained, the two men allegedly manhandled her. On being informed, the appellant’s brother Rajesh Singh, approached the accused to question them. At this point, Lillu Singh and Devi Singh reportedly took Rajesh into their house. There, Devi Singh allegedly shot Rajesh with a country-made pistol, leading to his death en route to the hospital.
Suresh lodged an FIR under Sections 452 (house trespass after preparation for hurt) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case went to trial in Sessions Trial No. 123/2012.
Plea of Juvenility
Respondent No. 2 (Devi Singh) filed an application during the trial claiming juvenility. He submitted that his date of birth was 18 April 1995, making him 16 years, 4 months, and 13 days old on the date of the alleged incident. Based on this plea, the trial court conducted an inquiry and held on 19 May 2015 that Respondent No. 2 was a juvenile. This order was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on 29 March 2016.
Aggrieved, Suresh approached the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant strongly disputed the determination of juvenility and submitted the following key arguments:
1. Reliance on Faulty School Certificate
The courts below relied on a transfer certificate issued by Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon, where Devi Singh was admitted directly into Class V. This certificate recorded his date of birth as 18.04.1995, based solely on the oral statement of his father. The appellant argued that this was not reliable evidence.
2. Contradictory Public Records
The appellant presented:
- Family Register maintained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which recorded Devi Singh’s birth year as 1991.
- Voters’ List from 2012, listing his age as 22 years on 01.01.2012.
These documents suggested that Devi Singh was over 20 years of age at the time of the incident.
3. Medical Board’s Report
A medical board assessed Devi Singh’s age as 22 years on 01.12.2012—more than a year after the incident. This meant he was over 20 years old when the offence occurred.
4. Applicability of Evidence Act
The appellant invoked Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to argue that only public records created in discharge of official duty carry probative value. Since the school was private and the certificate was based on oral representation, it could not be considered conclusive proof.
5. Seriousness of Offence
Given the heinous nature of the crime (murder with a firearm), the appellant argued that Respondent No. 2 should not be allowed to misuse the protections of the Juvenile Justice Act.
State’s Submissions (Respondent No. 1)
The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appellant’s plea and submitted that:
- The school certificate could not be treated as reliable.
- There was no matriculation certificate or birth certificate issued by a municipal authority.
- The voter list, family register, and medical report all pointed towards the accused being a major.
- The benefit of juvenility should not be extended in such circumstances.
Respondent No. 2’s Defence
The defence of Respondent No. 2, Devi Singh, was structured around the following threefold argument:
1. Multiple School Certificates
All school transfer certificates from Classes V to IX recorded his date of birth consistently as 18.04.1995, based on the record of the first-attended school.
2. Compliance with Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules
The respondent contended that:
- As there was no matriculation certificate available, the certificate from the first school attended (Kaushik Modern Public School) should be treated as conclusive.
- Medical opinion and other documents should be considered only in the absence of school records.
3. Already Released from Juvenile Custody
It was stated that Respondent No. 2 had already completed three years of custody as per the Juvenile Justice Board’s directions and had since been released.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court carefully examined the conflicting evidence and found the orders of the trial court and the High Court to be flawed. Key aspects of the Court’s analysis are:
1. Unreliability of School Certificate
The certificate from Kaushik Modern Public School was held unreliable because:
- It was based solely on an oral representation by the father.
- The Headmaster admitted during cross-examination that no documentary evidence was submitted at the time of admission.
2. Non-Public Document
Since the school was not a government school:
- The certificate did not qualify as a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The Headmaster was not a public servant under Section 35, and hence the entry carried less evidentiary value.
3. Value of Medical Evidence
The Medical Board’s assessment of age (22 years in 2012) was:
- Based on scientific and radiological tests.
- Preferred over unsupported school entries.
The Court cited Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2012) to underline that medical evidence prevails over faulty school records in serious offences like murder.
4. Other Public Records Corroborate Medical Report
- Family Register: Shows birth year as 1991.
- Voters’ List: Shows Devi Singh as a voter in 2012 (age 21).
These were held to be public records made in an official capacity and carried greater probative value.
5. Application of Rule 12 of JJ Rules
While Rule 12 provides a hierarchical preference of evidence for age determination:
- The Court held that such a preference does not override discretion in the face of contradictory or doubtful evidence.
- Justice must prevail over rigid procedural hierarchy in serious offences.
Final Conclusion and Orders
The Supreme Court concluded:
- Respondent No. 2 was not a juvenile at the time of the alleged murder.
- The findings of the trial court and the High Court were erroneous and based on unreliable evidence.
- The medical report, voter list, and family register outweighed the evidentiary value of the school certificate.
Key Directions of the Supreme Court
- Set Aside Previous Orders: Orders of the Trial Court (dated 19.05.2015) and High Court (dated 29.03.2016) declaring juvenility were quashed.
- Devi Singh to Face Trial as Adult: He shall be tried as a major in accordance with law.
- Appearance Before Trial Court: He must appear before the trial court within three weeks from the date of the judgment, failing which the State is permitted to use coercive steps.
- Previous Release Order Nullified: The release by Juvenile Justice Board after three years is also set aside.
- Trial to Be Concluded Expeditiously: The Court directed that the trial must conclude by July 2026.
- No Prejudice to Merits: The trial shall proceed on its own merits, and if convicted, Devi Singh shall get set-off for the 3 years already spent in juvenile custody.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision has far-reaching implications on:
- Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence: It clarifies that the benefit of doubt in age should not be exploited in heinous crimes where records are forged, manipulated, or unsupported.
- Evidentiary Hierarchy: It stresses that judicial discretion and scientific evidence may override mechanical application of Rule 12 of the JJ Rules.
- Deterrent Against Misuse: It sends a strong message that false claims of juvenility will not be tolerated to escape trial or punishment in grave criminal cases.
- Protection of Justice System Integrity: Courts must be cautious and avoid a casual or benevolent approach when juvenility is claimed without reliable records.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict in Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a classic instance of the Court prioritising substantive justice over technicalities. By refusing to blindly accept questionable school records and giving due weight to public documents and medical findings, the Court ensured that legal protections are not misused to defeat the ends of justice. The case is a guiding precedent on how juvenility must be determined rigorously, especially when dealing with heinous offences like murder.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams