Summary and Analysis of Suresh Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2018)

1. Heading of the Judgment

SURESH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2018)
Decided on: August 1, 2025
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Outcome: Appeal allowed; juvenility claim of Respondent No. 2 (Devi Singh) rejected.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment revolves around:

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

• Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (Rule 12)
  Rule 12(3): Procedure for age determination (hierarchy of evidence).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 35: Relevancy of entries in public records.
  Section 74: Definition of "public documents."

• Indian Penal Code, 1860:
  Sections 302 (Murder) and *452 (House-trespass)*.

• U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947:
  Family Register maintained under this Act.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Suresh (victim’s brother).
  Respondents:
  R1: State of Uttar Pradesh.
  R2: Devi Singh (accused).

• Origin: Appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s order (dated 29.03.2016) upholding the Trial Court’s decision declaring Devi Singh a "juvenile" during the 2011 offence.

• Incident:
  On 31.08.2011, Devi Singh and his father allegedly shot dead Rajesh Singh (Appellant’s brother) after trespassing into the Appellant’s house.

• Key Issue:
  Whether Devi Singh was a juvenile (below 18 years) on the date of the incident.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background

• Devi Singh claimed juvenility (age: 16 years, 4 months, 13 days on 31.08.2011) based on school certificates showing his birthdate as 18.04.1995.

• The Trial Court and High Court accepted these certificates as proof.

• The Appellant challenged this, citing:
  Family Register (U.P. Panchayat Raj Act): Birth year 1991 (age ~20 in 2011).
  2012 Voters’ List: Age recorded as 22 years (as of 01.01.2012).
  Medical Report (01.12.2012): Age estimated as 22 years.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

I. Flaws in Lower Courts’ Reliance on School Certificates

• The first school (Kaushik Modern Public School) admitted Devi Singh to Class V based solely on his father’s oral declaration (no birth proof).

• The Headmaster admitted during testimony that no documents (e.g., horoscope) were verified.

• Subsequent school certificates merely copied this unverified birthdate.

• The Court ruled:
  "The school certificates lacked credibility as they were not backed by documentary evidence and were contradicted by statutory records."

II. Hierarchy of Evidence Under Juvenile Justice Rules

• Rule 12(3) prioritizes evidence in this order:
  Matriculation certificate.
  Birth certificate from the first school attended.
  Birth certificate from municipal/panchayat authorities.
  Medical opinion (only if above documents are absent).

• Here, the "first school" certificate was used. However, the Court held:
  "When the first school certificate is unreliable, higher courts can consider other evidence like statutory records or medical reports."

III. Superiority of Statutory Documents & Medical Evidence

• Family Register (U.P. Panchayat Raj Act) and Voters’ List are "public documents" under Sections 35 and 74 of the Evidence Act. They showed Devi Singh’s birth year as 1991.

• The Medical Report (by Chief Medical Officer) scientifically estimated his age as 22 years in 2012 (i.e., 20–21 years in 2011).

• The Court cited Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2012):
  "In heinous offences (e.g., murder), medical evidence must prevail over unreliable school records when minority claims raise reasonable doubt."

IV. Final Ruling

1. The Trial Court and High Court orders declaring Devi Singh a juvenile were set aside.

2. Devi Singh was not a juvenile during the offence (31.08.2011) and must be tried as an adult.

3. Consequences:
   Devi Singh must surrender before the Trial Court within 3 weeks and may apply for bail.
   His earlier release by the Juvenile Justice Board (after serving 3 years) is invalidated.
   If convicted, he will get set-off for the 3 years already served.

4. Trial directed to conclude by July 2026.

Key Takeaway

The Supreme Court prioritized statutory documents (Family Register, Voters’ List) and medical evidence over unverified school records to deny juvenility in a murder case. It emphasized that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules is not rigid when higher evidence contradicts school certificates.