Back
2021 Supreme(All) 653
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Meghraj Sharma - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 3449 of 2019
Decided On : 14-07-2021
For the Revisionist : Sikandar B. Kochar.
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Sharique Ahmed.
Point of law: If no other evidence is led, either as to fabrication or manipulation in the school record or to create a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of school record or if there is no other contradictory stand taken by the accused as to the age disclosed on the strength of the school record, or there does not exist any other circumstance as may raise a reasonable doubt as to the genuineness or correctness of the school certificate or the date of birth of the claimant disclosed therein, then obviously the age claim made on the strength of the school certificate must be accepted and in that event, the Court concerned may remain advised to not unnecessarily examine any other evidence
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 7A, 68, 68 (1), 49 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Section 363, 364A, 302, 201 - U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Rules 2004 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Determining the juvenility - Age determination inquiry - That even in terms of the Rules 2007, it is specifically provided that the rules so framed by the State Government should be in conformity with the model rules framed by the Central Government - Whether the claim of juvenility is to be decided on the basis of 2007 Rules or 2004 Rules - Whether the orders passed and impugned herein are in conformity with the statutory mandate - And in case it is found that they need not be recast whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children )Rules 2004 framed by State Government or The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 framed by the Central Government shall apply to the matter, in Uttar Pradesh
Finding of the court: Yes . as the provisions of the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2004 on its own after introduction of Section 7-A and keeping in view the provisions of the Central Rules until and unless it is not revamped and not at all brought in consonance with the provisions as are contained under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007, the same cannot be subscribed and in view of this, same needs to be modified - That it needs to be modified and till it is not revamped, on the issue of juvenility being raised, the answer to the said question will have to be found on the parameters of the provisions as are contained under The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 and the same shall apply to the matter in the State of Uttar Pradesh also - If no other evidence is led, either as to fabrication or manipulation in the school record or to create a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of school record or if there is no other contradictory stand taken by the accused as to the age disclosed on the strength of the school record, or there does not exist any other circumstance as may raise a reasonable doubt as to the genuineness or correctness of the school certificate or the date of birth of the claimant disclosed therein, then obviously the age claim made on the strength of the school certificate must be accepted and in that event, the Court concerned may remain advised to not unnecessarily examine any other evidence - Board has committed error in determining the Juviniles claim by taking recourse to Rules of 2004 and has erred in not placing reliance on the High School Certificate, which is on record. Even otherwise also, the reasoning given by the Board in rejecting the claim of juvenility is wholly arbitrary.
Result: Revision allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sharique Ahmad, counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
2. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 6500036 of 2014 (State Vs. Meghraj Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2013, under Sections 302, 201, 364A IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the claim of juvenility pleaded by the revisionist was rejected by the Court, as well as the order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2018 (Meghraj Sharma Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 16.11.2018 was dismissed.
Facts in brief:
3. Facts which are the genesis of the present dispute are that an FIR dated 23.12.2013 was registered as Case Crime No. 213 of 2013 against some unknown persons initially under Section 363 IPC which was subsequently converted into Section 364A, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.
4. In the said FIR, the date of incident alleged was 22.12.2013. The investigations were carried out and a chargesheet dated 18.2.2014 was filed against the revisionist and the co-accused persons.
5. The revisionist claiming to be a juvenile on the basis of his High School Certificate indicating his date of birth as 21.4.1996, filed an application before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, for being declared a juvenile. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate relying on the High School Certificate declared the revisionist a juvenile vide order dated 2.4.2014. The said order dated 2.4.2014 was challenged by means of a Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2014. The appeal too was dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2015 and the order declaring the revisionist a juvenile was upheld in appeal. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the appellate authority on 14.9.2015, a revision was preferred before this Court being Criminal Revision No. 3839 of 2015. This Court heard the matter and finally held that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim of juvenility and held that it was Juvenile Justice Board, which was empowered to decide the said question, as such, the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on the question of juvenility by the Juvenile Justice Board.
6. The Juvenile Justice Board by means of an order dated 16.11.2018, disbelieving the High School Certificate and placing reliance on the medical report, held that the revisionist was not a juvenile on the date of the incident. The Board determined the juvenility on the basis of procedure prescribed under the Rules framed by the State Government in 2004.
7. The said order dated 16.11.2018 was challenged by the revisionist by filing Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2018 before the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar. The said appeal too was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.2019, thus the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 16.11.2018 holding the revisionist to be major was upheld by the Appellate Court. The present revision has been filed challenging both the orders dated 16.11.2018 and order dated 4.7.2019.
8. Common ground between the parties is that the date of incident admittedly is 22.12.2013. It is well settled that the question of juvenility is to be determined on the date of the incident.
Submission of parties:
9. The submission of counsel for the revisionist is that while determining the juvenility, the Juvenile Justice Board has erred in not relying upon the Birth Certificate, which was available on record indica
