In Brief
A man charged with armed robbery and murder claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the crime (January 2011), relying on a school certificate and medical age test suggesting he was 16-17 years old. The High Court rejected this, relying instead on a family register maintained by the village council showing his birth year as 1990. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that while family registers are relevant public documents, they need not strictly follow the statutory hierarchy of documents for age proof (birth certificates rank higher). The Court found the school certificate was procured after filing the juvenile claim and appeared unreliable; the medical ossification test is not conclusive for determining exact age. Where an applicant seeks juvenile status using dubious documents, courts need not grant benefit of the protective statute. Appeal dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.