If exact age not decided, age reduction of 1 year, as per JJ rules: SC
Last Updated on November 23, 2023 by News Desk
The Supreme Court recently looked at a case where someone was convicted of a crime when they were a teenager. The person asked the court to consider that they were a teenager at the time of the crime, and the court agreed to review the case. The law about how to treat young people who commit crimes was different back then.
But in 2005, a group of judges said that the new law should apply to cases that were still going on from before. The new law said that people under 18 should be treated differently. In this case, the person’s age was different according to different records. The medical report said they were 19, the school records said they were around 16, and the community records said they were 20.
The Court said that even if the medical report shows that the person is 19 years old, they still think it’s hard to know for sure. There are different reports and documents that say different things. So, the Court should give the person the benefit of the doubt and say they are one year younger.
The Court said that the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge made a mistake by not considering the rule that helps determine a person’s age in this case.
The subrule 3(b) of rule 12 2007 says that if it is difficult to know exactly how old someone is, the Court or Board or committee can decide to consider the person’s age as being younger by up to one year.
The Court said that the Panchayat Register is not important for showing evidence, but school certificates are. They mentioned a previous court case where they said that the certificate from the first school a person went to is a valid proof of their age.
Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan (@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)
