Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines To Ensure Minors Are Not Mistakenly Tried As Adults

1. The officer arresting the accused shall ensure his age by verifying any authentic documents like Matriculation or Equivalent Certificate, Date of Birth Certificate from the School, Aadhaar Card, Electoral Identity Card, Driving Licence, Ration Card etc. It shall be indicated in the remand report, the method adopted to ascertain the age of the arrestee while producing him before the Magistrate or Judge empowered to order the custody of the arrestee. The photocopy of the document relied on shall be appended to the remand report.
2. If the arresting officer could not access any such authentic document for ascertaining the age, it shall be stated so in the remand report and also state reasons why he thinks the arrestee is not a juvenile. The arresting officer shall soon conduct an enquiry and submit before the Magistrate/ Judge a report with authentic records showing the age of the arrestee.
3. The Magistrate or Judge before whom the arrestee is produced shall verify the document produced by the investigating agency and record in the remand order about his subjective satisfaction regarding the age at the time of commission of the crime. Except in cases where the arrestee is apparently age-old, the Magistrate or Judge before whom he is produced shall ascertain his age from him and record it in the custody order. If the age he states and his physical appearance gives the indication that he is liable to be treated as a juvenile, the Magistrate shall conduct an enquiry into following the procedure laid out in Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
4. In cases where the Investigating agency was not in a position to procure authentic documents showing the age of the arrestee, the Magistrate shall scrutinize the reasons stated by investigating agency to conclude that the arrestee is not a juvenile. The Judge/ Magistrate shall state in the custody order whether he concurs with the conclusion of the investigating agency. If the Magistrate/ Judge does not concur with the conclusion of the Investigating Agency or finds the records produced by the investigating agency unacceptable, the arrestee shall not be remanded to prison or custody of investigating agency. In such cases, appropriate orders shall be passed in respect of his custody pending the enquiry for ascertaining his age.

Background of the Case

4 members of a family – 2 brothers and their parents were convicted for murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On 11.01.2024, NALSA directed the Stale Legal Service Authorities to identify prisoners who were potentially minors at the time of commission of offence and to assist them in filing necessary application for raising the claim of juvenility. For this purpose, the Member Secretary of KELSA visited the prison and concluded from the school admission register of the brothers that they were both minors at the time of commission of the offence. After this, the brothers filed an application to recall the judgment against them.

The High Court passed an order directing the Session Judge to conduct an enquiry on the matter. The Sessions Judge relied on the school admission registers of the petitioners and submitted a report saying that they were minors at the time of commission of the offence.

The High Court directed an immediate release of the petitioners from the prison. By that time, they had undergone 14 years of imprisonment. If they were tried as juveniles, the maximum detention they would have had to undergo would have been 3 years.

The Court observed that there was serious lapse on the part of Circle Inspectors concerned in ascertaining the actual age of the petitioners. The Court asked the officers concerned and State why they should not be held liable for payment of fine.

The concerned circle inspectors said that the age of the petitioners were recorded as 22 and 20 as per the versions given by them and their parents. They said that their physical features also afforded no opportunity of doubt. They said that they had suspicion on the correctness of the age given in the admission register because the age difference between both the brothers were only 10 months and 25 days.

Decision of the Court

The Court observed that the fact that petitioners did not disclose that they were juveniles was not an excuse to the issue in hand. The Court however noted that even the 2 counsels of the petitioners did not bring it to the notice of the Court that they were juveniles. The Court also noted that the Magistrate before whom the petitioners were produced and remand also did not look into the issue.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish said that they cannot consider this as police's fault as there is no dereliction of duty because there is no express provision requiring the authorities to cross-check the minority of the offenders brought before them. The Court also observed that Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh @ Baboo Singh and Anr. V State of UP (2013) has put the responsibility more on judiciary by saying that Magistrate shall order an inquiry if he has a doubt that the accused produced before him is a juvenile.

The Court held that they cannot order the police to pay any compensation.

The Court highlighted the legislative gap, noting that no procedure has been established by the legislature to determine whether an arrestee is a juvenile.

The Court directed the Registry to communicate this order to heads of all investigating agencies of State, Centre and Officers of District Judiciary of the State.

Case Title: Mahesh C. and Another v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 795