Court relies on ossification test and Registrar (Judicial) inquiry to determine juvenility, granting relief under Juvenile Justice Act despite serious charges
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 29, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah) upheld the conviction of Rajiv Kashyap under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but quashed his sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.
Rajiv Kashyap was convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, in 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fines. However, during the pendency of the appeal, Kashyap claimed juvenility, stating that he was 17 years old at the time of the crime (dated October 27, 2013). Since he lacked documentary proof of his age, the Court ordered an ossification test conducted by a Medical Board in 2021 and directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to conduct an inquiry into his age.
The Registrar (Judicial), after evaluating the ossification test report and other materials, concluded that Kashyap was indeed 17 years old on the date of the incident, thus a juvenile in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("JJ Act"). The Court accepted this inquiry as conclusive proof of age, following precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Raju v. State of Haryana and Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal.
The Court noted that under Section 7A of the JJ Act, a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage before any court, including after the final disposal of a case. The age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, were meticulously followed, including reliance on the ossification test due to absence of birth or school certificates.
While the conviction was upheld based on the common evidence and role attributed to Kashyap along with co-accused, the Court quashed the sentence, observing that juveniles cannot be subjected to the same sentencing regime as adults under the JJ Act. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Pawan Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which upheld convictions but quashed sentences for juveniles, granting them release after considering the period of custody already undergone.
Importantly, as Kashyap was already on bail, the Court ordered that he need not surrender and discharged his sureties, granting him the benefit of Section 19 of the JJ Act, which safeguards juveniles from further detention beyond the prescribed period.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that juvenility claims must be thoroughly and fairly examined and that juveniles, even when convicted of serious offences like murder, are entitled to special protections under the law, including the quashing of sentences and appropriate rehabilitation measures.
Bottom Line:
Claim of juvenility can be raised at appellate stage under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; inquiry conducted by Registrar (Judicial) pursuant to Court's order and based on ossification test can be accepted as conclusive proof of age. Where accused is found to be juvenile on date of incident, conviction may be sustained but sentence is liable to be quashed, and accused need not surrender if already on bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Section 7A, 15, 16, 19; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 Rule 12; Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 201
Rajiv Kashyap v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2989399
