IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
Amjad (juvenile) - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRR No. 4791 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-09-2018
Juvenile - Determination of Age - Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order declaring him not a juvenile based on conflicting dates of birth. The petitioner's matriculation certificate indicated a different date of birth than other documents. The court had to determine the petitioner's juvenile status based on Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's matriculation certificate should be given precedence in determining his date of birth, as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. The court set aside the Sessions court's order and upheld the Judicial Magistrate's declaration of the petitioner as a juvenile.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be considered a juvenile based on conflicting dates of birth and the application of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, which prioritizes the matriculation certificate in determining a juvenile's age. The court emphasized the importance of factual evidence and the need to consider primary evidence, such as the matriculation certificate, over other documents.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Sessions court's order was set aside, upholding the Judicial Magistrate's declaration of the petitioner as a juvenile.
JUDGMENT
P.B. Bajanthri, J. (Oral) - In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for setting aside order/judgement dated 07.12.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat, vide which order/judgment passed on 13.06.20l6 was set aside whereby petitioner was declared as Juvenile.
2. Petitioner is alleged to have involved in an incident occurred on 01.09.2014 for which petitioner was subjected to whether is he juvenile or not. In this regard JMIC on 16.11.2015 declared that petitioner is juvenile. Thereafter in appeal Sessions Court remanded the matter on 28.04.2016 for holding fresh inquiry. Pursuant to the Sessions Court order, JMIC further held inquiry and determined that petitioner is a juvenile on 13.06.2016 which was the subject matter before Sessions Court. Sessions Court reversed the order of JMIC dated 13.06.2016 while holding that petitioner is not a juvenile with reference to Ex. RW1/A to Ex.RW1/M read with the statement of one Mohammad Sadik-RW1 to the extent that petitioner's date of birth is 03.02.1994. Thus, petitioner presented this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sessions Court taken note of matriculation certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P- 4) where the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 04.05.1998. It was also submitted that Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for short "Rules, 2007" provides for procedure to be followed in determination of age. First document is required to be taken into consideration is matriculation or equivalent certificate if available in the absence of date of birth certificate etc. Whereas in the present petition petitioner is qualified matriculation. Therefore, date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is required to be taken into consideration and not any other document. If one go by the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate date of birth of the petitioner is 04.05.1998. Thus, sessions court has erred in holding that the petitioner date of birth is 03.02.1994 while ignoring the matriculation certificate read with Rule 12 of 2007 Rules.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is contradictory date of birth as well as affidavit of the petitioner to the extent of furnishing date of birth as 03.02.1994 and so also 04.05.1998. In such circumstances, date of birth with reference to School record is required to be taken into consideration. Thus sessions court has not erred in holding that petitioner is not a juvenile with reference to the date of birth as 03.02.1994.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Question for consideration in the present petition is whether petitioner is juvenile or not with reference to Rule 12 of Rules, 2007. Rule 12 reads as under:-
12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.
(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(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
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.