SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2022 (Arising Out Of Slp (Criminal) No. 8423 of 2019)
Decided on : 15-02-2022
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 35 – Determination of age – Family Register – Section 35 of Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings – It contemplates that a register maintained in ordinary course of business by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law of country in which such register is kept would be a relevant fact – It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant to determine age of family members would not be correct enunciation of law – Register is being maintained in accordance with rules framed under a statute – Entries made in regular course of affairs of Panchayat would be relevant but the extent of such reliance would be in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 32 and 36)
(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94 {Corresponding to Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000} – Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12(3)(b) – Plea of juvenility – Determination of age – Appellant sought to rely upon juvenility only on the basis of school leaving record in his application filed under Section 7A of 2000 Act – Such school record is not reliable and seems to be procured only to support plea of juvenility – Appellant has not referred to date of birth certificate in his application as it was obtained subsequently – Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner – If reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that Act is a beneficial legislation – Provisions of statute are to be interpreted liberally but benefit cannot be granted to appellant who has approached Court with untruthful statement – Appellant has approached Court with unclean hands as documents relied upon by him are not genuine and trustworthy – Appellant cannot be given benefit of juvenility – View taken by High Court is a possible view in law – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 38 and 39)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30.07.2019, whereby an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad declaring the present appellant as juvenile in conflict with law was set aside and the appellant was ordered to stand trial as an adult.
Finding of Court:
In terms of Rule 12(3)(iii) of the Rules, birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a Panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility. The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. Even Section 94(2)(ii) of the 2015 Act contemplates a birth certificate issued by a Panchayat to determine the age.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30.07.2019, whereby an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad declaring the present appellant as juvenile in conflict with law was set aside and the appellant was ordered to stand trial as an adult.
2. The facts relevant for the determination of the present appeal are that the appellant was arrayed as an accused in respect of an occurrence on 18.01.2011, wherein the allegation against the appellant was that he waylaid a car and snatched Rs. 22 lacs from the occupants of the car. The complainant was one of the occupant of the car, whereas, another occupant -Bhim Singh lost his life on account of bullet fired on him. During the pendency of the trial, the appellant moved an application on 07.10.2014 claiming that he was a juvenile as on the date of the incident, relying upon his school record disclosing his date of birth as 13.05.1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the plea of the appellant and declared him to be juvenile vide order dated 09.01.2015. Such order was challenged before the High Court by way of a revision petition. The revision was allowed on 04.05.2016 and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for adjudicating afresh.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after remand, found the appellant to be 16 years 8 months and 5 days old on the date of incident as per the Ossification Test report. The age of the appellant as assessed by the Board of Doctors in the report was 23-24 years. The High Court however while setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the family register prepared under The U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 19701[For short, ‘Family Register Rules’] to hold that the appellant’s plea of juvenility cannot be allowed. Such order is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
4. The procedure to be followed for determination of age is provided under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 20072[For short, the ‘Rules’], which reads as:
(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year
and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into conside
Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar
Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal
Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam
Abdul Hakeem Pardhan and Others v. State of U.P.
Ram Murti Devi v. State of U.P. and Others
Pramod Kumar Manglik v. Smt. Sadhana Rani
(1) Family Register – It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant to determine age of family members wo....
The court established that reliable documentation and the benefit of doubt in age determination favor the accused in juvenile cases.
The court determined that documents indicating age must be prioritized as per Juvenile Justice Act, with the accused confirmed as a juvenile based on familial ages and educational certificates.
The burden of proof for age determination lies with the claimant, and reliable documentary evidence is crucial. The court's interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, emphasizes the importance....
The court's decision was influenced by the evidence from the Parivar Register and medical examination, which led to the rejection of the revisionist's claim of juvenility.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence in age determination inquiries and the consequences of relying on fabricated documents in determining juve....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence, such as school certificates, in determining juvenility, and the need for a careful and conscious approach....
The court can rely on evidence, including radiological tests, to determine a person's age and may reject a claim of juvenility based on contradictory claims and evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.