Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 769
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.
Usha
Versus
State Inspector of Police
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.53 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).1 of 2009
Decided On : 24-03-2009
For the Petitioner:P. Ramasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Rajendran, Government Advocate.
The judgment establishes the importance of birth certificates as conclusive proof of age and highlights the limitations of relying solely on radiology reports for determining age.
Headnote:
Juvenile Accused - Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 7-A - The judgment discusses the applicability of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act and the conclusive proof of age through birth certificate. It highlights the importance of birth certificate as the conclusive proof of age and the limitations of relying on radiology reports.
Fact of the Case:
The first accused filed a revision case against the lower court's refusal to consider her as a juvenile accused. The petitioner claimed to be 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense and sought to transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's birth certificate and school certificates proved her age to be 17 at the time of the offense, making her a juvenile. The lower court's dismissal of the petition was deemed erroneous.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be considered a juvenile based on her age at the time of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the conclusive proof of age through the birth certificate and emphasized the limitations of relying on radiology reports for determining age.
Final Decision: The lower court's decision was set aside, and the case was ordered to be split, with the petitioner's case transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.
This is a revision case filed by the aggrieved first accused against the order passed by the Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli in refusing to consider the first accused as the juvenile accused and to pass orders thereon.
2. The gist of the case submitted by the revision petitioner before the lower Court are briefly stated as follows:
The petitioner is the first accused against whom charge sheet has been filed under Sections 449, 120(B), 201, 302 and 380 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and the said charge sheet was taken on file and committed to Sessions Court and the case was filed in S.C.No.461 of 2007 and after the full-fledged trial, it is posted to 31.03.2008 for judgment. The alleged occurrence was said to have taken place on 11.05.2007 and on the said date, the petitioner was aged only 17 years and the date of birth as per the Transfer Certificate and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is 11.01.1990. The case filed against the petitioner/first accused should have been proceeded and tried under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, the case of the petitioner should be splited from the main case and transferred to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Juvenile Justice Board alone is competent to pass judgment against the petitioner.
3. The objections raised by the respondent prosecution would be as follows:
The School Certificates produced by the petitioner are not relevant to the petitioner and the School Certificates are not at all adequate to prove the age of the petitioner/first accused. The petitioner is under the obligation of proving that she was born on 11.01.1990. The petitioner did not put up her defence that she was juvenile accused on the date of offence during the course of trial and the petition has been filed by the petitioner/first accused at the fag end of the disposal for the case posted for judgment just to prolong the case as far as possible. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.
4. The learned Fast Track Judge No.I, Tirunelveli had permitted both parties to adduce oral evidence and had admitted documentary evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner had examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the petitioner. There was no oral nor documentary evidence produced on the side of the respondent.
5. The lower Court after appraising both oral and documentary evidence had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is always entitled to file petition seeking to declare herself as juvenile at any stage of the proceedings as per Section 7(A) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and however the petitioner did not prove that she was born on 11.01.1990 and in the police records, she was described as Usha aged about 23 years whereas her name was mentioned in all the records produced by the petitioner as Karpaga Usha and the petitioner used to sign as Usha only and therefore, the petitioner did not show that both Usha and Karpaga Usha are one and the same person. Therefore, the age given by the respondent in warrants and other documents that she was aged about 23 years would be correct and the same was confirmed by the radiology report produced by Radiologist of Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital that the petitioner could have been aged about 21 years as on 02.04.2008 should be true. Against the said findings of the lower Court, the Criminal Revision has been preferred and was contended that the order passed by the lower Court was against all cannons of law without accepting the proved fact and therefore, the said order should have been interfered and set aside.
6. Heard Mr.P.Ramasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the State.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the lower Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was aged more than 21 years
