In Brief
This appeal concerns a grave criminal case (Kathua rape case) where a respondent accused of abducting, gang-raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl claimed to be a juvenile. The trial court and High Court held him to be juvenile based on municipal and school birth certificates showing his date of birth as 23.10.2002. However, these certificates contradicted each other (school showing 23.10.2003) and hospital records showed no delivery on that date. A Special Medical Board of five experts (physiologist, anatomist, dental examiner, forensic expert, radiologist) examined him and concluded his age was 19-23 years. The Supreme Court held the respondent was not a juvenile. Despite documentary evidence, contradictions and lack of hospital delivery proof required referral to medical examination. The Court rejected the argument that mere documentary evidence suffices when contradictory, emphasizing that benevolent Juvenile Justice law protects genuine juveniles, not calculated criminals using minority as a shield.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.