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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh S/o Late Kishor Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 991 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Karan Kaushik, Kanu Priya.
For the Respondent: Snehlika Bhagat.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that age determination for juveniles must consider all available evidence, allowing a margin of error in ossification tests, ultimately declaring the petitioner juvenile.

Headnote:

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94 - Determination of age - The petitioner claimed juvenility based on school certificate and Aadhar Card, but the trial court relied on medical evidence, which estimated the age as 20-21 years. The court emphasized the need for flexibility in age determination, allowing a margin of error of two years in ossification tests. The court ultimately found the petitioner to be juvenile at the time of the alleged offence. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

(B) Evidence - The court noted that the school certificate was not of first attendance and relied on the ossification test, which is not conclusive for age determination. The court reiterated that the benefit of doubt regarding age must favor the accused. (Paras 18, 19)

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Ranchi in POCSO Case No. 59 of 2022 in connection with Angara P.S. Case No. 84 of 2021, whereby the prayer for declaring the petitioner juvenile, had been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the FIR was lodged by the victim herself with these allegations that about five months ago she came in contact with Mukesh Singh at the time of grazing the goats. Thereafter, love affairs developed between them and several times petitioner established physical relation with the victim. He also took her at several places and also took her to his house Baijnath Tata. On 19.09.2021, after pouring kerosene over her body set her ablaze, whereby she was burnt Mukesh Singh and his mother Leela Devi had set her ablaze. On hearing her screaming, the persons of the locality attracted there. Her mother also came there and she was taken to RIMS hospital by her mother with the help of people of village and admitted in RIMS Hospital, after being recovered, she gave the written information with the police station concerned. On this written information, Case Crime No. 84 of 2021 was registered with Angara Police Station, Sub Division, Sadar, District Ranchi for the offence under Sections 376, 307, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act against the Mukesh Kumar Singh and Leela Devi.

3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, exonerated Leela Devi from the charge and filed charge sheet against the accused Mukesh Kumar Singh for the offence under Sections 376, 307, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. The learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi took cognizance on the charge sheet and framed charge against the accused Mukesh Kumar Singh for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. During trial, an application was moved on behalf of the accused Mukesh Kumar Singh before the trial Court claiming himself to be juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence.

6. The learned trial Court itself concluded the inquiry and after recording the evidence, rejected the application of the petitioner-accused to declare him juvenile vide order dated 09.02.2023.

7. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 09.02.2023, this Criminal Revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned lower Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective while rejecting the application of the petitioner to declare him juvenile. The learned lower Court ignored the age of the petitioner shown in the school certificate and Aadhar Card as well and relied upon the medical evidence, in which, the estimated age of the juvenal was relied by the learned lower Court without considering the margin of error principle in case of ossification test to determine the age of the petitioner. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the materials available on record.

9. From the record, it transpired that the application was moved on behalf of the petitioner-accused before the learned lower Court with prayer to declare him juvenile on the ground that the date of occurrence is 19.09.2021 while as per school certificate issued by the Government Middle School, Gari, Ranchi the date of birth of the petitioner is shown 17.05.2004. On the date of occurrence, the age of the petitioner was 17 years 4 months 2 days. He has been in judicial custody since 08.11.2021, accordingly, prayed to declare the petitioner juvenile.

1

    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