IMPORTANT POINTS
Entirely new case cannot be set up and argued before Supreme Court.
In case of doubt about veracity of school certificates, an enquiry for determination of age would be permissible.

Headnote:(a) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7A r/e Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007 – Medical Board assessing appellant’s age to be 19 years on 08.2011 – Accordingly JJ Board fixing age of the appellant-accused as 18 years, 10 months and 6 days on date of occurrence, i.e., 29.06.2011 – Panchayat electoral roll showing age of appellant as 19 years on 01.01.2009 – JJ Board rightly not giving benefit of one year over medical boars assessment. (Para 22)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Entirely new case cannot be set up and argued before Supreme Court. (Para 23)
       (c) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7A r/e Rule 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2007 – Age of juvenile – If matriculation or equivalent certificate is reliable, it has to be treated as conclusive proof of age – However, in case of doubt an enquiry for determination of age would be permissible – Instantly, certificates issued by different schools contradictory – Electoral roll showing the appellant as major – Resort to medical examination for determination of age – No infirmity. (Para 28)
       (2012) 9 SCC 750; (2013) 14 SCC 637; (2012) 10 SCC 489 – Relied upon
       (2002) 2 SCC 287; (2009) 13 SCC 211; (2015) 7 SCC 773; (2012) 5 SCC 201 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant was arrested for murder of one Satender and produced before the Juvenile Court and thereafter remanded and kept in Juvenile Home.
       The father of the appellant-accused filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board stating that the date of birth of the appellant-accused is 13.09.1995. The application on behalf of the appellant-accused for proving his juvenility was supported with various school certificates issued by the competent authorities from time to time.
       The Juvenile Justice Board, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the date of birth is doubtful and the juvenile was referred to the Medical Board for determination of age.
       The Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, opined that the age of the appellant-accused is about 19 years. The Board held that the appellant-accused is a major and accordingly, transferred the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
       Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-accused.
       Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant-accused.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 4377 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein against the judgments and orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 07.09.2011 and 04.10.2011 respectively.

3. Brief facts:

(a) On 29.06.2011, one Shri Rajpal Singh (the complainant)-Respondent No. 2 herein lodged a complaint with P.S. Kasana, Dist. Gautambudh Nagar, informing that his son-Satender, who was residing with his family at Greater Noida, was found dead in his house.

(b) On the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) being No. 360 of 2011 dated 29.06.2011 got registered under Sections 302, 394, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the Code’) at P.S. Kasana, Dist. Gautambudh Nagar.

(c) During investigation, the appellant herein got arrested on 05.07.2011 with regard to the crime in question and was produced before the Juvenile Court and was remanded and kept in Juvenile Home.

(d) The father of the appellant-accused filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board stating that the date of birth of the appellant-accused is 13.09.1995. The application on behalf of the appellant-accused for proving his juvenility was supported with various school certificates issued by the competent authorities from time to time.

(e) The Juvenile Justice Board, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the date of birth, as recorded in various School Certificates, submitted by the father of the appellant-accused on his behalf, is doubtful and the juvenile was referred to the Medical Board for determination of age.

(f) On 23.08.2011, the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, opined that the age of the appellant-accused is about 19 years. The charge sheet in the case was filed on 07.09.2011 before the Court of Juvenile Justice Board (in short ‘the Board’), Meerut. The Board, placing reliance on the opinion of the Medical Board, vide order dated 07.09.2011, held that the appellant-accused is a major and accordingly, transferred the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar.

(g) Aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2011, the appellant-accused preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Meerut by filing Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, vide order dated 04.10.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-accused.

(h) Being aggrieved by the orders dated 07.09.2011 and 04.10.2011, the appellant-accused preferred a revision before the High Court. Learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, vide judgment and order dated 24.05.2013, dismissed the revision filed by the appellant-accused.

(i) Aggrieved by the order dated 24.05.2013, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by Dr. V.P. Appan, learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. R. Dash, learned senior counsel for the State and perused the records.

Points for consideration:

5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is doubtful, the ossification test can be the last resort to prove the juvenility of the accused?

Rival Submissions:

6. Dr. V.P. Appan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contended before this Court that the appellant-accused was arrested on 05.07.2011 and produced before the Juvenile Court and was remanded and kept in Juvenile Home. The father of the appellant-accused filed an application before the Board stating that the date of birth of the appellant-accused is 13.09.1995. He supported his claim by producing a co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 366

IMPORTANT POINTSEntirely new case cannot be set up and argued before Supreme Court. In case of doubt about veracity of school certificates, an enquiry for determination of age would be permissible.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Entirely new case cannot be set up and argued before Supreme Court.
In case of doubt about veracity of school certificates, an enquiry for determination of age would be permissible.