Yashika Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67 | Decided on 19 February 2020

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Yashika Sahu v. State of Rajasthan is a decisive interpretation of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The case reaffirms the supremacy of documentary evidence over medical estimation in age determination and solidifies juvenility as a right, not a concession. The ruling is vital for preserving the reformative vision of juvenile justice and eliminating systemic reliance on ossification tests, which are inherently imprecise. It echoes the protective spirit of the Constitution and international obligations toward children in conflict with law.

“Juvenile justice is about reformation, not retaliation. The law must favour protection over punishment.”

Keywords

Juvenile Justice, Age Determination, Documentary Evidence, Section 94 JJ Act,

Ossification Test, Right to Fair Trial, Rehabilitation, Child Rights

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose

Bench: Division Bench

Appellant: Yashika Sahu

Respondent: State of Rajasthan

Relevant Statutes

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94
• Constitution of India – Article 21
• Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263
• Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 13 SCC 211
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Yashika Sahu, was facing prosecution under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of a fellow student. During the proceedings before the Trial Court, she raised the claim of juvenility, asserting that she was a minor on the date of the alleged offence.

She produced her school-leaving certificate, Aadhaar card, and other documents reflecting her date of birth, which proved her age to be below 18. However, the Trial Court and subsequently the Rajasthan High Court dismissed her claim. The primary basis for rejection was an ossification test that indicated her age to be around 19–20 years. The High Court deemed the documentary evidence “unreliable” without valid justification.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant moved the Supreme Court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, invoking Section 94 which gives primacy to documentary evidence for age determination.

Issues Involved

• Whether a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the judicial proceedings, including during appellate or revisional stages?
• Whether medical examination (ossification test) can override authentic documentary proof like school certificates or Aadhaar cards under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015?
• What is the statutory priority for age determination under juvenile justice law?
• Whether rejection of the documentary proof amounts to miscarriage of justice and violation of child rights?

Contentions by the Appellant

• The appellant contended that she was a minor on the date of the offence and submitted valid documentary evidence — her school-leaving certificate and Aadhaar card, both proving her birth year as 2001.
• She argued that Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 mandates reliance on documents such as matriculation or birth certificates as the first tier of evidence. Only in the absence of these can medical examinations be considered.
• The appellant relied heavily on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court held that ossification tests are inherently imprecise and must not override credible records.
• It was submitted that the rejection of her documents without proof of tampering or falsity violated her right to fair trial, dignity, and protection under Article 21.
• The plea of juvenility, it was argued, can be raised at any stage as per Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, and courts are obligated to conduct proper inquiry.

Contentions by the Respondent

• The State argued that the appellant raised the plea belatedly, and her conduct cast doubt on her credibility.
• It relied on the ossification report which opined her age to be between 18 to 20 years, which, the State claimed, justifies denial of juvenile status.
• It was further argued that the documentary evidence could not be relied upon without corroboration and that visual maturity also suggested adulthood.
• The State maintained that the medical opinion was more “neutral” and should prevail where there was a dispute about documents.

Judgment / Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that Yashika Sahu was a juvenile on the date of the incident. The Court reprimanded both the Trial Court and High Court for mechanically relying on the ossification test despite valid documentary proof being available.

The case was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate proceedings under the JJ Act, 2015.

Analysis

This judgment reaffirms that juvenility is a matter of legal entitlement, not judicial discretion. The law is settled that when authentic documentary proof is submitted, it must be given precedence over subjective or scientific estimations like ossification.

The ruling is transformative because it:

• Curtails arbitrary medical reliance which has historically been misused to disqualify juvenility claims.
• Solidifies the legislative hierarchy under Section 94, placing school records and Aadhaar at the top.
• Aligns Indian juvenile jurisprudence with international best practices under the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• Demonstrates the Court’s commitment to procedural fairness, child-centric adjudication, and rehabilitation-oriented justice.

The judgment also serves as a caution to lower courts regarding the uncritical acceptance of ossification tests, which provide only approximate age estimates. Medical experts themselves often specify a margin of error of 1–2 years, making such reports insufficient to deny a child the protections of the Juvenile Justice system.

In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that if a matriculation certificate is available, it must be accepted. The present case reaffirms that statutory priority must prevail over scientific discretion. Similarly, in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the Court protected a juvenile’s rights even at the post-conviction stage, invoking Section 7A of the old JJ Act. The Yashika Sahu ruling aligns with these precedents, forming a consistent judicial approach toward child-centric jurisprudence.

This case also reflects the harm caused by delayed recognition of juvenility. The system’s delay already subjects the child to adult procedures, trauma, and stigma — consequences that may become irreversible by the time relief arrives. Thus, the Supreme Court rightly reiterated that justice delayed is not merely justice denied, but in juvenile cases, rehabilitation denied.

Comparative Jurisprudence

The ruling aligns with global child rights standards, particularly those enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which India is a signatory. Articles 37 and 40 of the UNCRC mandate that children accused of crimes be treated in a manner consistent with their age, dignity, and potential for reintegration. Misclassifying a minor as an adult violates these principles and subjects the child to disproportionate punishment.

In the United Kingdom, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, firmly establishes age-based protections. UK courts presume the age stated in official school or hospital records to be determinative, and medical testing is rare. Similarly, U.S. courts apply a “best interests of the child” test, and age disputes often trigger special hearings with full evidentiary safeguards.

By adopting a documentary-evidence-first approach, Yashika Sahu brings Indian law into greater harmony with these global standards and shows the Court’s willingness to interpret domestic laws in light of international obligations under Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

• Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 prioritizes documentary evidence like school certificates and Aadhaar for age determination. Medical opinion can be considered only as a last resort when documentary evidence is absent or unreliable.
• The plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings — trial, appeal, or revision — under Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.
• Ossification tests are estimative, not conclusive, and cannot override documents unless the latter are proven false.
• Benefit of doubt in age must always go in favour of the accused in line with the juvenile justice philosophy.

Obiter Dicta

• Courts must resist substituting legislative mandates with subjective visual or behavioural assessments.
• Justice for juveniles requires faith in reform, not retribution, and judicial systems must uphold this vision at every stage.
• Medical science cannot displace legal certainty when reliable public records
• The judgment stresses that a juvenile’s right to legal safeguards cannot be made contingent on the stage of litigation.
• Courts must not conflate apparent physical maturity with legal adulthood. A person’s bodily development is not an indicator of legal capacity or culpability under the JJ Act.

Final Decision

In a landmark move, the Supreme Court declared the appellant a juvenile under Section 2(35) of the JJ Act, 2015 and ordered that she be tried under the procedures laid down for children in conflict with law.

The apex court’s directive to remand the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board sends a strong message to all trial courts — the primary duty is to protect, not prosecute, a child. The decision reinstates the doctrinal clarity that children are entitled to restorative justice, and their treatment in legal proceedings must reflect care, not criminality.

As a result, Yashika Sahu v. State of Rajasthan is now a binding precedent for:

• All courts dealing with juvenility claims under the JJ Act, 2015.
• Police officers, who must record and respect juvenility claims at the time of arrest.
• Legal aid providers, who must proactively raise such claims to ensure children are not wrongly tried as adults.

This case sets a legal safeguard and ethical standard for juvenile protection — and reinforces that in the eyes of the law, every child deserves a second chance.