In Brief
The appellant challenged the Juvenile Justice Board's declaration that the accused Nishant was a juvenile (15 years 8 months old) at the time of an incident on 05.05.2020 where he allegedly attacked the appellant's family, resulting in deaths. The Board relied on a matriculation certificate issued by the State Board of Secondary Education showing the date of birth as 25.09.2004. The appellant argued the certificate should be rejected due to identical signatures on school admission forms from ages 4 and 12. The Supreme Court upheld the Board's decision, holding that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 establishes a hierarchical procedure prioritizing Board-issued matriculation certificates as conclusive proof of age. The Court rejected the hyper-technical approach, finding no independent contradictory documentary evidence and confirming the accused was indeed below 18 years on the incident date.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.