Uttam Nagar murder: Court quashes JJB order after records suggest ‘minor’ accused is over 18

New Delhi: A sessions court has set aside an April order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) declaring an accused in the Tarun Butolia murder case a minor and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, noting discrepancies in documents relating to his age.

The development comes after the investigating officer informed JJB that an MCD birth certificate, verified as genuine, recorded the accused’s date of birth as Oct 7, 2007, making him “an adult of over 18 years of age”.

The fresh irregularity surfaced in a case where another sessions court had already taken cognisance of charges against 17 accused in connection with Butolia’s murder during Holi celebrations in Uttam Nagar in March.

Hearing an appeal filed through complainant’s counsel, advocate Sumit Kumar, additional sessions judge Rajat Goyal noted that multiple documents on record reflected conflicting dates of birth for the accused. While the appellant relied on an MCD birth certificate showing his date of birth as Oct 7, 2007, the alleged ‘child in conflict with law’ (CCL) produced another certificate with a birth date of Oct 7, 2011, claiming the former as “forged”. The court found fault with the manner in which JJB determined his age.

JJB had justified its finding by relying on school records issued by the principal and an undertaking from the accused’s mother stating his date of birth as Oct 7, 2011, noting the IO had verified the authenticity of those documents. However, the sessions court disagreed with the approach. Referring to judicial precedents, it observed that school records by themselves don’t carry much “evidentiary value” unless the source material on the basis of which the date of birth was recorded is also examined.

“The foundational documents on the basis of which date of birth was recorded in the school must be examined by the board before returning a finding qua age of a person on the basis of the school record,” the court said.

It further noted that proceedings under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 require JJB to “make a declaration with respect to age of the person”, and such a declaration must be based on evidence. Relying on settled law and precedents, the court observed that “the board must satisfy itself that the documents being relied upon by it to make such a declaration are worthy of reliance and acceptance”.

The court said the board had relied exclusively on school records without conducting “independent inquiry” verifying the basis of the date of birth recorded therein, directing a fresh determination of the issue.