Case Name : P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Case Reference: (2023) 10 SCR 478 :
Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 676
Case Number: Crl A 1989/2023
Court: Supreme Court
Bench: 02
Coram: S Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
Date: 18.07.2023
Section 94 of JJ Act, 2015 is attracted in cases of POCSO (Para 12)
Burden of proving that someone (X) is a juvenile (minor) lies on person who claims that that person (X) is a juvenile (minor) (Para 17); See also Evidence - Section 103
Transfer certificate, extracts of admission register are not what JJ Act, 2015 - Section 94 contemplates in 94(2)(i) or 92(2)(ii) When the documents mentioned in (i) or (ii) are absent, the result of the bone ossification test is the most authentic evidence, in terms of 94(2)(iii) - (Para 19)
Prosecution cannot rely on document produced by court summoned witness since burden is on prosecution to establish what it alleges based on document it relied upon (Para 14)
Refer also: Rishipal Singh Solanki vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 12 SCR 502 (Para 15) - JJ Act, 2000 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 9 SCR 735 (Para 16) JJ Act, 2015 - Section 94 is a graded provision; clause (ii) applies only if documents in clause (i) are absent. Similarly so for clause (iii), which applies only if documents in clauses (i) and (ii) are absent Abuzar Hossain vs State of West Bengal, (2012) 9 SCR 224 (3-Judge Bench) (Para 17) Burden of proving that someone is juvenile is on person claiming such a thing
See also: IPC - Section 366 POCSO - Section 6 POCSO - Section 34 Evidence - Section 103