2 August 2025 Legal Updates

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ACCEPT SCHOOL RECORD, RELIES ON STATUTORY DOCUMENTS TO REJECT JUVENILITY PLEA OF MURDER ACCUSED

(a) Case Title:

• Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 1, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Facts of the Case

The incident occurred on August 31, 2011 wherein the respondent Devi Singh and his father Lillu Singh forcibly entered Suresh’s (Appellant’s) house, manhandled his wife, and later shot and killed Suresh's brother Rajesh with a country-made pistol. FIR under Sections 452 (house trespass) and 302 (murder) of IPC was lodged against him.

Legal Issue

Whether Devi Singh was a juvenile (under 18 years) at the time of the incident and thus entitled to protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000?

Conflicting Evidence on Age

1. Evidence Supporting Juvenility:

• School certificates from 4 schools showing date of birth as April 18, 1995
• All certificates traced back to first school (Kaushik Modern Public School)
• According to these, accused was 16 years, 4 months, 13 days old at time of incident

2. Evidence Against Juvenility:

• Family Register under UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 showing birth year as 1991
• Voters' List (2012) showing age as 22 years
• Medical Board Report (December 1, 2012) estimating age as 22 years

Court's Analysis

• Unreliable School Certificate: The first school's headmaster admitted that the birth date was recorded based solely on oral representation by the accused's father, without any documentary proof
• Private vs. Public Documents: School certificates from private schools don't qualify as "public documents" under Evidence Act
• Statutory Documents: Family Register and Voters' List are public records with greater evidentiary value
• Medical Evidence: Scientific medical examination showed accused was around 22 years old

Legal Principles Applied:

• Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules: Provides hierarchy of documents for age determination
• Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan precedent: In serious offences, when documentary evidence creates reasonable doubt about minority, medical evidence should be given precedence over school records
• Section 35 of Evidence Act: Relevancy of entries in public records

Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that Devi Singh was a major at the time of the incident and further directed that he be tried as an adult for the murder charge.

Reasoning:

• School certificate was unreliable as it was based on oral representation without verification
• Multiple public documents (Family Register, Voters' List, Medical Report) consistently showed accused was over 18
• Courts must be cautious when accused in serious crimes attempt to claim juvenile status based on questionable evidence
• The accused cannot abuse statutory protection meant for genuine juveniles

S.84 BSA | POWER-OF-ATTORNEY EXECUTED BEFORE FOREIGN NOTARY VALID ONLY IF COUNTRY IS 'RECIPROCATING' UNDER NOTARIES ACT: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 31, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Babu

Background

An 80-year-old woman (Margret) filed a suit through a Power of Attorney holder seeking execution of a release deed and partition of family property. The defendants challenged the validity of the Power of Attorney, which was executed in St. Louis County, Missouri, USA.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether a Power of Attorney executed before a notary public in a foreign country (Missouri, USA) can be recognized by Indian courts without proof of reciprocity.
• The relationship between Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act (presumption regarding Power of Attorney) and Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (reciprocal arrangements for foreign notarial acts).

Court's Decision

The High Court allowed the petition and held that:

• Section 85 cannot operate in isolation: The presumption under Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding Power of Attorney executed before foreign notaries cannot be applied without considering Section 14 of the Notaries Act.
• Reciprocity requirement: For Indian courts to recognize notarial acts done by foreign notaries, the Central Government must issue a notification under Section 14 declaring that country as "reciprocating."
• No proof of reciprocity: There was no evidence that Missouri (USA) is a reciprocating country under the Notaries Act, nor was there any Central Government notification to this effect.
• Power of Attorney invalid: The trial court erred in accepting the Power of Attorney without insisting on proof of reciprocity.

Key Legal Principles

• Foreign document authentication requires compliance with both Evidence Act and specialized statutes
• Statutory interpretation - specific provisions (Notaries Act) prevail over general provisions (Evidence Act)
• Reciprocity principle in international legal recognition
• Procedural safeguards in cross-border legal documents

Judgment

The original order accepting the Power of Attorney was set aside. The plaintiff was given liberty to produce a properly executed Power of Attorney to continue the suit.