The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2018) on August 1, 2025, set aside the trial court and Allahabad High Court’s orders that had declared the accused (Respondent No. 2) as a juvenile. The apex court ruled that the accused must face a full trial as an adult under charges of house trespass and murder.
Case Background
On 31 August 2011, Suresh (the appellant) alleged that his uncle Lillu Singh and cousin Devi Singh (Respondent No. 2) forcibly entered his house and misbehaved with his wife. When the matter was reported to Suresh and his brother Rajesh Singh, Rajesh went to confront the accused duo.
It was alleged that Lillu Singh and Devi Singh dragged Rajesh into their house, where Devi Singh shot Rajesh with a country-made pistol. Rajesh succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules: Commuting Accidents Covered Under Employment Compensation – Key Legal Insights
An FIR was lodged under Sections 452 and 302 of the IPC. During the trial, Respondent No. 2 claimed juvenility, citing his date of birth as 18 April 1995.
The Trial Court, relying on a transfer certificate from Kaushik Modern Public School showing the birth date as 18.04.1995, declared the accused to be 16 years and 4 months old on the date of the crime.
The High Court upheld this order in 2016. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The appellant challenged the school record, stating that:
- The accused was directly admitted to Class V based on an oral statement by his father.
- The Family Register under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 recorded his year of birth as 1991.
- The 2012 Voters’ List stated his age as 22.
- The Chief Medical Officer's report estimated the accused’s age as 22 years in 2012.
Read also:- SC Dismisses Review Plea in Harkaish Bhadoria vs Union of India Case
The appellant cited Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan to argue that school certificates without supporting proof hold limited value and that medical and public documents must be given weight.
“The declaration of juvenility was plainly improper... The birth certificate based on oral representation without verification is unreliable.” – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Court noted:
- The transfer certificate was based solely on the oral statement of the father.
- Other certificates issued were based on this first certificate and lacked independent value.
- The Family Register, Voters’ List, and medical report all indicated that the accused was over 18 years old at the time of the offence.
- The school was not a government institution, and its record did not qualify as a “public document” under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
Read also:- SC Adjourns CPIL’s Plea Against Centre; Next Hearing on August 5
The Court concluded that the accused was a major at the time of the incident.
- The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and High Court.
- Held that Respondent No. 2 was not a juvenile on the date of the incident.
- Directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it by July 2026.
- Ordered Respondent No. 2 to appear within three weeks before the Trial Court and apply for bail.
- Cancelled the earlier release order of the accused passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
“The protection under Juvenile Justice Act cannot be used as a shield to escape trial in heinous offences.” – SC Bench
Case Title: Suresh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 1 August 2025
Appellant: Suresh
Respondents:
- Respondent No. 1: State of Uttar Pradesh
- Respondent No. 2: Devi Sing