Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Nakul Turi, son of Suraj Turi and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. Revision No.328 Of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2023
For the Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan Kumar.
For the Opp.Party : Mrs. Lily Sahay.
The main legal point established is the reliance on authentic documentary evidence, such as matriculation or equivalent certificates, and medical evidence for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice - Rejection of application under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - 7A, 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2015 - IPC 341, 323, 504, 302/34 - Summary: The court rejected the application to declare the accused as juveniles based on the medical evidence and lack of authentic documentary evidence for age determination. The court emphasized the importance of matriculation or equivalent certificates and medical evidence in determining juvenility.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with offences under sections 341, 323, 504, 302/34 of IPC. They applied under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, stating they were juveniles at the time of the offence. The court rejected the application based on medical evidence and lack of authentic documentary evidence for age determination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the school certificates and entries in the school register were not authentic evidence for age determination. It relied on medical evidence to determine the accused were above 18 years old at the time of the offence.
Issues: The key issue was the determination of the accused's juvenility based on the evidence presented, including school certificates, entries in the school register, and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of matriculation or equivalent certificates and medical evidence in determining juvenility. It held that in the absence of authentic documentary evidence, medical evidence should be relied upon for age determination.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was affirmed, as the court found no infirmity in rejecting the application to declare the accused as juveniles.
JUDGMENT :
(Subhash Chand, J.)
The instant criminal revision is on behalf of petitioners Nakul Turi and Vikash Turi against the order dated 06.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Deoghar in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.448 of 2019, arising out of S.T. No. 121 of 2019 whereby the application under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in terms of section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2015 has been rejected by the learned court below in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No.342 of 2018 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 504, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') pending before the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this criminal revision are that the informant Shital Kole gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 07.11.2018 at 12:30 in the day time, some persons were gambling (Jua) adjoining to her house. The women were also taking bath at the nearby handpump. At the same time, the brother of the informant Saroj Kole went to the persons who were gambling and asked them not to play cards. On the very issue, Sunil Turi (22 years old), Nakul Turi (21 years old) the brother-in-law of Arjun Turi, the nati of Sarju Turi, namely, Mukesh Turi (20 years old), Karu Turi and Vikash Turi having formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common intention hurled abuse and assaulted to the brother of informant with kick and fist whereby the brother of informant sustained internal injuries. Hearing the alarm all the accused persons fled away having criminally intimidated them. The primary treatment was given to the brother of the informant at the house who ultimately succumbed to the injuries. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 342 of 2018 was registered with Madhupur Police Station of District Deoghar for the offence under sections 341, 323, 504, 302/34 of IPC.
3. The investigating officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused Sunil Turi, Nakul Turi, Chandan Turi and Vikash Turi. While Mukesh Turi being juvenile charge-sheet was filed against him to the learned JJ Board concerned. The court concerned committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar for trial. The trial court framed charged against the accused persons for the offence under sections 341, 323, 504, 302/34 of IPC.
4. Before the trial court, an application was given on behalf of the petitioners Mukesh Turi, Vikash Turi, Nakul Turi and Chandan Turi under section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with these averments that all the petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. They have stated before the court below while surrendering that they were juvenile but no heed was paid to the request of the petitioners. In regard to the prove of the age, Adhar card and the school certificates, all were produced but the learned court of Magistrate did not take the same into consideration and committed the case for trial to the court of the sessions Judge. In view of the above prayed to declare the petitioners juvenile.
5. The learned court of VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar passed the order on this very application in Cr. Misc. No. 448 of 2019 on 06.10.2020 with the effect that except Mukesh Turi all the petitioners/accused were above the age of 18 years and the application on behalf of Vikash Turi, Nakul Turi and Chandan Turi was rejected; while this petition was allowed upto the extent of Mukesh Turi who was declared juvenile but it was held that the offence being heinous, his trial would be conducted as an adult.
6. Aggrieved from this impugned order dated 06.10.2020 this criminal revision is preferred on behalf of petitioners Nakul Turi and Vikash Turi on the grounds that t
