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

2013 Supreme(Raj) 860

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Nisha Gupta, J.
Om Singh alias Kuldeep - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2341 of 2012.
Decided On : 21-02-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Suresh Sahni with Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Advocate.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of relying on specific documents such as matriculate or equivalent certificate, school certificate, or birth certificate from a relevant authority for determining the age of a juvenile, as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007.

Headnote:

Juvenile - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 - Rule 12(3)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under section 302 IPC and 3/181 and 134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner moved an application to treat him as juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board opined that the petitioner is juvenile, but the order was set aside by the appellate court.

Finding of the Court:

The appellate court erred in relying on irrelevant evidence such as ration card, voter list, and Poshahar Register. The court emphasized the importance of matriculate or equivalent certificate, school certificate, or birth certificate from a relevant authority for determining the age of the juvenile.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of the petitioner's age to establish juvenile status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for determining the age of a juvenile, reliance should be placed on matriculate or equivalent certificate, school certificate, or birth certificate from a relevant authority. Medical opinion should only be sought when these documents are not available.

Final Decision: The order of the appellate court declaring the petitioner as non-juvenile was set aside, and the petition was allowed.

JUDGMENT

1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Effected Area, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2012, whereby order passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 9.2.2012 the present petitioner has been declared juvenile was set aside.

2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence u/s 302 IPC and 3/181 and 134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The petitioner moved an application to treat him as juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 9.2.2012 has opined that the present petitioner is juvenile. The appeal has been preferred. The order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 9.2.2012 was set aside. It is also pertinent to note that earlier S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1567/2012, the court has remanded the matter to the lower appellate court to pass fresh order taking into consideration the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Shah Nawaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2011 (3) Criminal Court Cases 838 (S.C.) : 2011 (3) Apex Court Judgments 010 (S.C.) : 2011(13) SCC 751 .

4. The contention of the present petitioner is that he is a juvenile and the court below has rightly considered the class 10th mark sheet and according to provisions of rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 the court is duty bound to make the inquiry for the determination of the age and the matriculate certificate or equivalent certificate if any is the foremost evidence to be considered and when class 10th marksheet was available the court below has rightly considered the document and rightly declared the petitioner as juvenile.

5. Per contra contention of the respondent is that if the school or birth record are not free from ambiguity and do not conclusively prove the age of the accused then medical evidence should only be relied upon and other documents are irrelevant for the determination of age under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 and his contention is that the medical opinion regarding age of the juvenile be called for. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the record of the case.

6. The Juvenile Justice Board has relied upon class 10th certificate and opined that the date of birth of juvenile is 15.7.1994 and he was juvenile at the time of the incident. The appellate court has considered the fact that class 10th mark sheet could not be relied upon as it has been drawn on the basis of Ex.1 which is the admission form of the present petitioner in class I and there is over writing in the year of birth and hence all other documents in which the date of birth have been recorded on the basis of Ex.1 are also unreliable. Ex.2 is the student record register wherein the date of birth has been written as 15.7.1994 and admittedly there is no cutting in the said entry. On the basis of the fact that there is cutting or overwriting in the entry of date of birth in Ex.1. The appellate court has found that school records are not reliable and to ascertain the age, reliance has been placed on ration card, voter list and Phoshahar Register of Medical Department.

7. To deal with the controversy, relevant provisions are Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 which read as under:

(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









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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