Neither Headmaster Nor School Records Qualify As ‘Public Servant’ Or ‘Public Record’: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Holding Murder Accused As Juvenile

The Supreme Court has set aside an Order holding a murder accused as juvenile on the ground that neither the Headmaster/Principal nor school records qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which it dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and upheld the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), declaring the accused as ‘juvenile’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act).

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “… the Headmaster/Principal of such School cannot be said to be a ‘public servant’ for the purposes of the Evidence Act. The Headmaster when examined has himself taken the stand that Kaushik Modern Public School, Khurgaon was only a State Government-recognized school. … Therefore, neither the Headmaster/Principal of the first attended school nor its records would qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’ respectively.”

The Bench declared that the accused is a major as on the date of commission of the alleged offence and liable to be tried as a major.

AOR Rajesh represented the Appellant while AOR Vishwa Pal Singh represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant alleged that in 2011, while he, his father, mother, and his brother had gone to their fields, his paternal uncle and his son (Respondent-accused) forcibly entered his house at around 10 a.m. When restrained by his wife who was alone at the house, allegedly the said two persons manhandled her. When the said incident was narrated to the Appellant and his brother by the parents who had reached the house during the incident, the brother went to the father-son duo to enquire about the same. It was further alleged that in this interaction, the two accused forcibly took him inside their house where the paternal uncle caught/held him and the Respondent took out a country-made pistol and fired on him with the intention to kill.

Pursuantly, he suffered injuries and died en route to the hospital. Thereafter, the Appellant lodged an FIR under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Complaint proceeded to be converted into Sessions Trial before the ASJ. With a plea that his date of birth was April 18, 1995 and as on the date of the incident, he was aged 16 years, 4 months and 13 days, the Respondent filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Trial Court, seeking to establish his juvenility. The Trial Court established his juvenility, which was challenged before the High Court. However, his Petition was dismissed and being aggrieved, he approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “Having bestowed anxious thoughts to the issue, we find that the approach adopted by the Trial Court as well as the High Court was not proper. Though the issue of juvenility, indubitably and primarily has to be determined as per the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as applicable at the relevant time, yet under appropriate circumstances and with justifiable reasons, the Court examing the issue has the discretion to take other relevant materials and factors into account, for ultimately the cause of justice has to prevail.”

The Court noted that there is no dispute on the factum that the first attended school is not a Government School and thus, the records maintained by the said school would not be ‘public documents’.

“From an overall circumspection of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the Rules, the picture which emerges is that on the one hand, there is the certificate backed by the testimony of the Headmaster of the first school (which as indicated supra notes that the recordal was made on the oral say-so of Respondent No.2’s father) relating to the date of birth and the three consequentially-made/issued certificates, whereas on the other hand, there exists a statutory document, being a public record and a public document, in Form (A) under Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 disclosing the year of birth of Respondent No.2 as 1991 as also the entry in the Voters’ List for the Legislative Assembly of the year 2012 and the Medical Report apropos the age of Respondent No.2 given by the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar, who opined that Respondent No.2 was aged about 22 years on 01.12.2012”, it said.

The Court added that as such, the certificate issued by the school could not have been taken as conclusive proof of date of birth of the Respondent, discarding Form (A) under Rule 2 of the Rules under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; the entry in the Voters’ List for the Legislative Assembly of the year 2012, and; the Medical Report.

“On the basis of the latter three documents, it is clear that Respondent No.2 cannot be said to have been a ‘juvenile’ on the date of the unfortunate incident. … Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the declaration of Respondent No.2 as a ‘juvenile’ being plainly improper, the Impugned Order as well as the Order dated 19.05.2015 of the Trial Court holding the Respondent No.2 to be a ‘juvenile’ are hereby set aside”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial on priority basis ensuring that the same is taken to its logical conclusion latest by the end of July 2026.

Cause Title- Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 918)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Rajesh

Respondents: AORs Vishwa Pal Singh, Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates Mukesh Kumar, Srikant Singh, Akash, Anurag Pandey, and Nivedita Nair.

Click here to read/download the Judgment