RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Mahipal @ Mahipal Tetarwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 484 of 2021
Decided On : 26-08-2021
Juvenile - Age Determination - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 94, 102 - The court emphasized the importance of educational certificates for age determination, affirming the validity of the date of birth as per the Board of Secondary Education, which influenced the decision to restore the order of the Juvenile Justice Board.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minor at the time of the alleged incident, challenged the appellate court's decision regarding his age determination, which was crucial for his trial under juvenile law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the age determination was correctly based on the credible evidence from the Board of Secondary Education, which was not disputed by the respondents.
Issues: Whether the age of the petitioner was correctly determined as per the relevant legal provisions and whether the appellate court erred in its judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the educational certificates, particularly the matriculation certificate, are the most reliable evidence for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Result: The petition was allowed, quashing the appellate court's judgment and restoring the order of the Juvenile Justice Board.
ORDER
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 claiming the following relief:
Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that an FIR bearing No.47/2020 was registered on 21.05.2020 at Police Station Merta Road, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 143 & 120-B of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the police found the date of birth of the petitioner to be 15.07.2002, and thus, he was only 17 years and 10 months old and was minor on the date of the alleged incident. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, whereas for the remaining accused, a separate charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.
5. The respondent No.2 moved an application for determination of the age of the juvenile i.e. the accused-petitioner before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur, while stating that the petitioner's actual age was 19 years and 06 months, as his actual date of birth is 15.12.2000.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 21.11.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur, in which, the learned court has examined the documents of the school education of the petitioner, which indicate that his date of birth was 15.07.2002.
7. The learned court has held that the complete record has been examined so much so that even the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan also indicated the age of the petitioner to be 15.07.2002. The certificate issued by the concerned school as well as the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education were also examined.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.11.2020 was in accordance with law as the court after examining the complete record has held that the petitioner's age has to be taken as 17 years 10 months, at the time of the incident happened on 21.05.2020, as his date of birth is 15.07.2002.
9. Learned Government Advocate cum cum Additional Advocate General has taken this Court to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short "the Act of 2015"). He fairly submits that due priority has to be given to the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, and thereafter, if the educational certificates do not reflect proper date, then rest of the options can be exercised.
10. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the transfer certificate had certain overwriting in regard to the age, as 15.07.2000 has been converted into 15.07.2002.
11. This Court finds that even if the transfer certificate on the earlier classes had some overwriting, then also the peti
AI
Educational certificates are paramount in determining the age of a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, influencing the court's decision significantly.
For age determination in juvenile cases, documentary proof outweighs medical testing, as specified in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The date of birth in a matriculation certificate is conclusive unless credible evidence suggests otherwise, with courts favoring juvenility in borderline cases.
The determination of a juvenile's age should consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the need for a just view to ensure justi....
The court reaffirmed that age determination for juveniles must rely on credible documents, prioritizing educational certificates over voter lists.
The determination of a person's age under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is crucial in deciding their status as a minor in an offense.
The court emphasized that age determination in juvenile cases must primarily rely on credible documentation like birth certificates and school records, with ossification tests being a last resort in ....
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.