RAM VIJAY SINGH Vs .STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

CITATION	AIROLINE 2021 SC 118
DATE OF JUDGMENT	25th February ,2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Ram Vijay Singh
RESPONDENT	State of Uttar Pradesh
BENCH	B.R.Gavai ,Hemant Gupta ,Rohinton Fali Nariman

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Ram Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (February 25,2021),the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues related to custodial violence ,police accountability, and the protection of human rights under the Constitution.Ram Vijay Singh ,the petitioner, alleged that he was subjected to severe physical abuse and torture by police officers while in custody .He approached the Supreme Court seeking justice and accountability for atrocities he endured .The Supreme Court ,in its judgement ,emphasised the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution .It unequivocally condemned any form of custodial violence and emphasized the duty of the state to protect the dignity and physical integrity of individuals ,especially when they are in police custody. The Court reiterated that custodial violence not only violates constitutional rights but also undermines the rule of law and the principles of justice.It underscored that the use of torture or excessive force by police officers is absolutely impermissible and unconstitutional. Furthermore,the judgement highlighted the importance of accountability in law enforcement agencies .The Court emphasized that police officers must adhere strictly to legal procedures and respect human rights during the investigation and detention processes .It called for effe give mechanisms to prevent custodial violence and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.The case of RamVijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) serves as a significant legal precedent reaffirming the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of individuals ,particularly those vulnerable to abuse in police custody .It underscores the constitutional principles of justice ,fairness and human dignity ,laying down guidelines for the prevention of custodial violence and promotion of accountability with law enforcement agencies .

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The pivotal issue before the court concerns the determination of then appellant’s juvenility at the time of the offence ,which allegedly occurred on July 20 ,1982 .
2. The appellant stands accused under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34.Central to the case is whether the appellant was a juvenile as per the legal definitions applicable at the time of the offence .
3. Ram Vijay Singh asserts his juvenility primarily based on documentary evidence presented to the court .This evidence includes entries in the family register ,an Aadhar Card ,and a bail order from a previous legal proceeding ,all of which indicate  that he was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident .
4. The appellant’s legal team contends that these documents provide conclusive proof of his age and thus establish his status as a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice Act .
5. On the other hand ,the State of Uttar Pradesh ,represented by the prosecution ,challenges the appellant’s claim of juvenility .
6. They rely on a medical board’s report that estimates Ram Vijay Singh’s age to be between 40 and 55 years based on physical examination and other medical assessments .The prosecution argues that medical evidence should prevail over documentary evidence in determining the appellant’s age for legal purposes.
7. The courts deliberation involves a nuanced analysis of conflicting types of evidence .The Judiciary must interpret the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act in the context of the evidence presented.This includes evaluating the reliability and authenticity of documentary evidence with regard to medical opinions ,resolving any inconsistencies or discrepancies between them.Additionally,the court is tasked with reconciling previous legal precedents and judicial interpretations concerning the determination of juvenility in criminal cases.
8. Ultimately ,the resolution of this case will hinge on the court’s determination of the appellant’s age at the time of the offense. The outcome will have far-reaching implications not only for Ram Vijay Singh but also for the interpretation and application of the juvenile justice laws in India.

ISSUES RAISED

1.The appeal arrises from the High Court’s order dated 22/4/2020 ,which upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ,1860.

2.The pivotal issue in this appeal is determined based on age of the accussed at the time of the offence .

3.Juvenility in criminal law is determined based on the age of the accused at the time of the offence.

4.If the appellant was a minor when the offence occurred ,the Juvenile Justice Act ,2015 may apply.

5.The Act emphasises rehabilitation over punishment for juveniles.

6.Establishing juvenility involves examining documentary evidence or witnesses to verify the appellant’s age.

7.The appellate court must carefully scrutinise this issue to ensure compliance with legal provisions and humanitarian principles.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

Juvenility Claim –

1. Appellant’s counsel, Mr.Gopal Shankarnarayan ,argued before the High Court that the appellant was granted bail in 1982 as a juvenile aged between 15-17 years.
2. Contention is that even with a maximum age of 55 years as per the current medical report, the appellant would still be under 18 years at the time of the incident.
3. Refers to Rule 12(3)(b)of the Rules ,now part of Section 94 of the Act ,which mandates the use of ossification tests to determine juvenility .
4. Argues that finding from the ossification test should not be disregarded .

Merits of the Case –

1. Defense highlights the absence of testimony from Girendra Singh ,the deceased’s brother ,who allegedly witnessed the incident .
2. Cities contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 Ram Naresh Singh regarding the weapon used (initially a ‘Barchhi’ ,later referred to as a ‘lathi’).
3. Claims that PW-1’s credibility regarding the involvement of Dhruv Singh has been questioned ,hence his testimony should not be pivotal in determining the appeal’s role.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

In compliance with a court directive issued on 13.1.2021 ,the State’s advocate was instrucetd to produce all original documents related to a specific Gun License .Subsequently,the State submitted an application  on behalf of the appellant seeking an Arms Licence.This application, dated around 21.12.1981 ,included the appellant’s date of Birth as 30.12.1961 .A pivotal  aspect of the application process was a police report submitted on 28.3.1982, confirming no criminal cases were registered against the appellant .This report formed the basis on which the application for the Arms Licence was processed.Following due procedure ,the Area Magistrate approved the grant of the Arms License on 24.7.1982. Notably ,this approval occurred after the incident in question had occurred.

The sequence of events underscores several critical points –

1.Court Directive and Document Production -The court’s specific order necessitated the submission of original documents pertaining to Gun License.

2.Applicatiom Details -The application submitted on behalf of the appellant contained his declared date of birth and was filed just before the police report was issued.

3.Police Report and Approval Process -The police report ,affirming the absence of criminal records ,was pivotal in the processing of the Arms License application.Subsequent approval by the Area Magistrate followed.

The granting of the Arms License post-incident is of legal relevance ,as it speaks to procedural timeline and the basis upon which such licences are approved .The court’s scrutiny of original documents aims to verify the validity and compliance of the process leading to issuance of the licence.

JUDGEMENT 

In the case of Ram Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh ,the appellant’s claim of being a juvenile at the time of the offense hinged on the reliability of an ossification test conducted when he was 55 years old. The court scrutinized this test’s validity given his advanced age and highlighted its limitations in accurately determining age in such cases .The appellant’s assertion contradicted his earlier application for an Arms Licence where he had stated his birthdate as December 30,1961,making him legally over 21 years old at the time of the incident on July 20,1982. This documentary evidence was pivotal in establishing his age conclusively. The legal principles invoked by the court underscored the importance of reliable and trustworthy evidence in determining crucial issues such as age in criminal proceedings .The absence of a reliable medical report to confirm the appellant’s juvenile status at the time of the offense significantly weakened his defence .The court’s decision highlighted the need for courts to carefully assess the quality and reliability of evidence ,particularly in cases where age determination plays a critical role in legal proceedings.Furthermore,the judgement addressed challenges to witness credibility raised by the appellant .The court reaffirmed that the non-examination of certain witnesses does not necessarily undermine the overall quality of evidence presented ,as long as the evidence examined by the courts is deemed credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .This principle underscores the judiciary’s role in weighing the probative value of evidence rather than solely focusing on the quantity of witnesses or testimonies.The appellate courts’s role in reviewing the trial court’s findings was crucial in this case .It affirmed that both the trial court and the High Court had meticulously examined all available evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary proof, before arriving at a guilty verdict .This comprehensive evaluation ensured that the appellant’s rights to a fair trial were upheld ,adhering to due process and legal standards .

In conclusion ,the judgement in Ram Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh exemplifies the judiciary’s adherence to legal principles in criminal cases ,particularly regarding age determination and the evaluation of evidence .By prioritising the reliability of documentary evidence over potentially flawed medical tests and affirming the trial court’s thorough assessment of witness credibility ,the court ensured a fair and just outcome .This case serves as reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of both defendant’s and victims in criminal proceedings.

ANALYSIS

The judgment in Ram Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) concerns the interpretation of age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act .It contrasts Section 94 of the Act with its predecessor Rule 12 ,which was part of the earlier Juvenile Justice Act .Section 94 mandates age determination by a Committee or Board based on available documents like birth certificates ,and if unavailable ,through medical tests like ossification. Unlike Rule 12 ,Section 94 does not provide a margin of age benefit ,affecting juvenile lacking definitive age proof .The judgement references the case of Abuzar Hossain to underscore these procedural changes and emphasises the continued importance of ossification tests despite statutory revisions .It concludes that while minor procedural differences exist between Rule 12 and Section 94, the fundamental approach to age determination  remains consistent ,prioritizing conclusive evidence over discretionary age benefits for juveniles. This analysis clarifies the evolving legal framework governing age assessment in juvenile justice cases under Indian law.

 CONCLUSION

The judgement in Ram Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh address the appellant’s appeal ,primarily concerning the determination of age and the circumstances of a criminal incident.The court dismissed the appellant’s argument that a previous bail order conclusively determined his age ,noting the absence of a supporting medical report.It highlighted the injuries sustained by the deceased ,described in detail by Dr.Shyam Mohan Krishna ,which pointed to a blnt weapon, specifically a lathi ,weilded by the appellant .Despite arguments about the commonality of lathis in rural settings ,the court affirmed the lower courts’ findings regarding its offensive use in tis case.Consequently ,the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.This decision underscores the importance of concrete medical evidence in age determination and the critical evaualuation of factual evidence in criminal cases involving serious injuries.

REFERENCES

1.https://indiankanoon.org

2.https://main.sci.gov.in

3.https://www.the-laws.com

4.https://www.advocatekhoj.com

This Article is written by Zil Sachela student of Kes JP Law college ,Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.