The Kerala High Court, in a pertinent ruling, has issued a set of comprehensive guidelines aimed at ensuring that juveniles are not erroneously treated as adults in criminal proceedings. The Division bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G. Girish, declined to order the police to pay compensation, stating that there was no express legal provision mandating authorities to verify the minority status of offenders. The court highlighted a legislative gap, emphasizing the absence of specific legal provisions to ascertain whether an arrestee is a juvenile.

“We also expect the Legislature to consider the inadequacy in the relevant laws on the issue highlighted in this Order, and take appropriate remedial measures.” the court stated.

This case involves the conviction of four family members (two brother’s and their parents) for murder, they were arrested in 2004 and were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010. However, in 2024, it was discovered that the brothers were juveniles at the time of offense. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), on January 11, 2024, directed State Legal Services Authorities to identify prisoners who were minors at the time of the crime and assist them in filling applications for claiming juvenility. Following this directive, the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA) reviewed the brother’s school admission records, which revealed that they were minors when the offense occurred.

The brother’s subsequently filed for an application to recall the 2016 judgement against them. Acting on the High Court’s directive, the Sessions Court’s judge conducted an inquiry and confirmed their juvenile status based on school records. The High Court ordered their immediate release after 14 years of imprisonment, noting that as juveniles, the maximum detention they could have faced was three years.

The Court criticized the significant failures on the part of the circle inspectors in verifying the petitioner’s ages at the time of arrest. While the officers had recorded their ages as 20 and 19 based on physical appearance and family declarations, their actual ages at the time of their arrest were indicative of them being minors, they failed to cross-check these claims with official records. The officers defended their actions, citing doubts about the accuracy of the admission registers due to the narrow age gap of just over 10 months between the brothers.

The court emphasized that the Petitioner's failure to disclose their juvenile status at the time of their arrest did not resolve the issue at hand. It further noted that the Petitioner’s legal counsels also failed to bring this critical fact to the court’s attention during the proceedings. The brothers juvenile status only came to light two decades after their arrest, leading them to seek a recall of the 2016 judgment that upheld their conviction. Additionally, the Magistrate who initially remanded the Petitioners, overlooked this aspect entirely.

The court stated that “It is most unfortunate that the petitioners had to undergo incarceration in prison for a period of about 14 years due to the failure of the authorities concerned to take note of the fact that they were juveniles at the time of commission of the crime. If their juvenility was disclosed to the Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry, or the Additional Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial, the maximum period of detention they would have to undergo in some observation homes would have been three years.”

The bench observed that the police could not be held solely responsible for the oversight, as there was no specific legal provision mandating authorities to verify the minority status of accused individuals. The Supreme Court referred the judgment of Jitendra Singh @ Baboo Singh and Anr. v. State of UP [2013 (11) SCC 193], which had observed that, "Keeping in mind all these standards and safeguards required to be met as per our international obligations, it becomes obligatory for every Magistrate before whom an accused is produced to ascertain, in the first instance or as soon thereafter as may be possible, whether the accused person is an adult or a juvenile in conflict with law.”

Therefore,on the observation of the above, the bench reiterated that the judiciary bears the responsibility to initiate an inquiry if there is any doubt about an accused’s juvenile status.

However, the Court observed that there is no clear provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, or other relevant laws requiring authorities to verify the age of offenders. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Jitendra Singh @ Baboo Singh and Anr. v. State of UP [2013 (11) SCC 193] to prevent unfortunate incidents like the present case, we find it necessary to issue the following directions to the investigating agencies and the District judiciary for strict adherence:

“(i) The officer arresting an accused shall ensure the age of the arrestee by verifying any of the authentic documents like Matriculation or Equivalent Certificate, Date of Birth Certificate from the School, Aadhaar Card, Electoral Identity Card, Driving Licence, Ration Card etc. and indicate in the remand report about the course so adopted, before production of such accused before the Magistrate or Judge empowered to order the appropriate custody of such arrestee. The photocopy of such record relied on by the Arresting Officer shall be appended to the Remand Report.

(ii) In any case, if the Arresting Officer is not able to procure any such authentic document before the production of the arrestee before the competent judicial officer for remand, the said aspect shall be stated in the remand report together with the reasons which prompted the officer to conclude that the arrestee is not a juvenile. In such cases, it shall be the responsibility of the Arresting Officer to embark on an immediate enquiry and produce before the Magistrate or Judge, a report along with authentic records showing the age of the arrestee.

(iii) The Magistrate or Judge before whom the arrestee is produced shall verify the document produced by the Investigating Agency showing the age of arrestee, and record in the remand order about his subjective satisfaction regarding the age, at the time of commission of the crime, of the person being remanded to appropriate custody. Except in cases where the arrestee is apparently age-old, the Magistrate or Judge before whom he is produced shall ascertain his age from him and record that aspect in the order of custody being passed. If the age so stated by the arrestee, and his physical appearance give the indication that he is liable to be treated as a juvenile, the Magistrate/Judge shall conduct an enquiry on that aspect following the procedure envisaged under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, and pass appropriate orders in the matter of his custody.

(iv) In cases where the Investigating Agency was not in a position to procure authentic document showing the age of the arrestee, the Magistrate or Judge before whom the arrestee is produced shall scrutinize the reasons stated by the Investigating Agency to conclude that the arrestee is not a juvenile, and record in the order of custody whether he concurs with the conclusion of the Investigating Agency in that regard. In cases where the Magistrate or Judge finds the conclusion of the Investigating Agency in that regard unacceptable, and also in cases where the Magistrate or Judge finds the report and records produced after the enquiry conducted as stipulated in clause (ii) hereinabove by the Arresting Officer unacceptable, the arrestee shall not be remanded to Prison or custody of the Investigating Agency. In such cases, appropriate orders shall be passed in respect of his custody pending the enquiry for ascertaining the fact whether he comes under the definition of juvenile as per the relevant law applicable.”

Case Title: Sebastian @ Assaithambi v. State Of Kerala., CRL.A. NO. 1394 OF 2011

Advocate’s For Petitioners: Sri.Jijo Joseph (Statebrief), and Sri.Ramesh.P.

Advocate’s For Respondent: Public Prosecutor, Director General Of Prosecution, Shri.P. Narayanan, Spl. G.P. To DGP And ADDL. P.P., Shri.Sajju.S., Senior G.P.