SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Chh) 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Ajay Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 2719 of 2019
Decided On : 19-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A, for the Respondent

The importance of statutory documents and the prescribed procedure for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Headnote:

POCSO Act, 2012 - Juvenile Justice - Section 9, Section 94(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 9 and Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the procedure for determination of age. It highlighted the importance of statutory documents in determining juvenility and emphasized that the court should follow the prescribed procedure for age determination.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application claiming to be a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence. The court rejected the application based on conflicting date of birth records and upheld the petitioner's non-juvenile status.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's date of birth as per the school register prevailed over other documents, and therefore, he was not a juvenile at the time of the offence.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of the petitioner's juvenility at the time of the alleged offence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of statutory documents in determining juvenility and highlighted the prescribed procedure for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim of juvenility.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 06/12/2019 passed by learned Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as ''POCSO Act, 2012'') whereby learned Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/accused and declined to hold him juvenile on the relevant date.

2. Petitioner herein was arrested by the Police Station, Bhatapara on 05.11.2019 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and he was chargesheeted accordingly. During the course of the trial, petitioner filed an application that on the relevant date, he was juvenile and therefore, he be tried by Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law, and he relied upon his marksheet of ClassIII, a copy of school leaving certificate as well as Aadhar Card in which his date of birth is recorded as 15.12.2000. The application was replied by the State Government holding that as per Dakhil Khariz register of school, petitioner''s date of birth is 10.10.2000, as such, the application deserves to be rejected as he was not juvenile on the relevant date.

3. Learned Special Judge, by its order dated 06/12/2019, rejected the application holding that petitioner''s date of birth is 10/10/2000 as per Dakhil Khariz register and he was not juvenile on the relevant date. Questioning the order impugned, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in rejecting petitioner''s application holding that he was not juvenile on the relevant date, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and petitioner be sent to Juvenile Justice Board for trying him in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel would support the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ''the Act of 2015'') came into force w.e.f. 01/01/2016 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was thereby repealed. Section 9 of the Act of 2015 provides for procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act which states as under:''

    9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act .

    (1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.

    (2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be:

    Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

    (3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top