Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3062
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Aditya Nath Mittal, J.
Anand Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2014
Decided On : 06-08-2014
For the Appellant : Pradeep Kumar Singh
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate, Kunwar Mukul Rakesh, Kunwar Shushant Prakash and Sunil Kumar Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of school records, medical evidence, and the benevolent nature of juvenile justice legislation in determining the age of a juvenile and resolving disputes regarding juvenility.
Headnote:
Juvenile - Juvenile Justice - U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Rule 22(5), Rule 12(3), Section 68(1) - The court discussed the application of U.P. Juvenile Justice Rules, 2004 and the relevant provisions for determining the age of the juvenile. It highlighted the importance of school records, medical evidence, and the benevolent nature of juvenile justice legislation in resolving the issue of juvenility.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the age of the proposed juvenile, with the Juvenile Justice Board initially ruling against juvenile status, which was later overturned by the Sessions Judge. The revisionist argued that the school records and the age difference with the juvenile's brother indicated non-juvenility, while the opposite party contended that the U.P. Juvenile Justice Rules should be followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the date of birth recorded in the school first attended and the subsequent schools did not create any doubt about the juvenile's age, and the revision lacked merits. The Sessions Judge's order was upheld, and the revision was dismissed.
Issues: The key issue was the determination of the juvenile's age and the applicability of U.P. Juvenile Justice Rules in resolving the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of school records, medical evidence, and the benevolent nature of juvenile justice legislation in determining the age of the juvenile. It also highlighted the relevance of specific rules and provisions under the U.P. Juvenile Justice Rules, 2004 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Final Decision: The revision lacked merits, and the Sessions Judge's order was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the revision.
Aditya Nath Mittal, J.: -
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow dated 14.02.2014 has been set-aside and the opposite party No. 2 has been declared as juvenile.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is difference of only six months and one day in the age of the proposed juvenile and his brother, which is not practically possible. It has also been submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly held that opposite party No. 2 was not juvenile on the date of incident, but learned Sessions Judge without any ground has set-aside the said judgment of Juvenile Justice Board. It has also been submitted that the first school attended was not a recognized school, therefore, the age mentioned in that school cannot be taken into consideration.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that in view of the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 the date recorded in the first school attended and the date mentioned in the High School Certificate is to be taken into consideration and the said Kutumb Register cannot be taken into consideration. It has also been submitted that if there is a difference of only six months and one day in the age of two children, then it cannot be said that the opposite party No. 2 was not juvenile on the date of incident.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad pronounced in Criminal Revision No. 5506 of 2004 (reported in 2013 (5) ALJ 672 ); Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance upon the cases of Mohammad alias Noor Mohammad (Minor) v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2011 (72) ACC 144) : (2011 (1) ALJ (NOC) 189), Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in (2012 920 JIC 904 (SC)) : ( AIR 2012 SC 1608 ), Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., reported in (2006 (3) JIC 742 (SC)) : ( AIR 2006 SC 2157 : 2006 (4) ALJ 269) and Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and another, reported in (2010 (2) JIC 431 (SC)) : (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 781).
5. In the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there is contradictions in school records, the medical evidence becomes relevant and strong evidence.
6. In the case of Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the alleged juvenile was never serious in projecting his plea that he was minor on the date of commission of offence and such statement was made for the first time while at the statement under Section 313 , Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that appellant was not serious in projecting his plea of minor hence such plea cannot be entertained at this stage.
7. In the case of Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and another (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of juvenility and the contention that only the competent authority had jurisdiction to decide the juvenility has no merit. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the trial court has given good reasons for discarding the evidence adduced and in these circumstances, the High Court should not have substituted his own findings.
8. As the position of law has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, I do not propose to discuss the Hon'ble Single Judge judgments of this Court.
9. It is not disputed that age of the proposed juvenile has to be determined in accordance with rules. In this regard, the State of U.P. has also prescribed the rules.
10. Rule 22(5) of U.P. Juvenile Justice (
