Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
Criminal Revision No.614 of 2021
Decided on : 15-07-2022
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94, (1), 35 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397, 401, 173 (2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7 - Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 - section 7A - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Declared Juvenile - Challenging Judgment - Whether in facts and circumstances of case enquiry undertaken to determine date of birth of revisionist is judicious or is arbitrary - Whether inspite of High School Certificate of revisionist available on record, Court below could have proceeded to undertake an enquiry to adjudicate upon age of revisionist - Whether conclusion drawn by Court below is illegal, perverse or erroneous - Whether revisionist has passed High School Examination or not - Whether revisionist was a juvenile on date of occurrence or not – Held, Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner - If reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that Act is a beneficial legislation - As also held in Babloo Pasi, provisions of statute are to be interpreted liberally but benefit cannot be granted to appellant who has approached Court with untruthful statement - That when determination of age is on basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents - When case in hand is examined in light of aforesaid principles laid down regarding parameters, in accordance with which claim regarding juvenility has to be adjudicated object and nature of claim of juvenility raised by an accused, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in this criminal revision - Accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Kirtikar pandey, learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 27.1.2021, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C II, Ballia, in Misc. Application Criminal No. Nil of 2019, dated 29.3.2019 (Paper No.3 Kha), whereby aforesaid application filed by accused Vishal Sigh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar Singh, claiming therein that he be declared juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.11.2017 has been rejected.
4. Present Criminal Revision came up for admission on 19.3.2021 and this Court passed the following order:
The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 27.1.2021, passed by A.S.J./F.T.C.-II, Ballia, in S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No. 745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia whereby the application of the revisionist declaring himself to be juvenile, has been rejected.
The submission of counsel for the revisionist is that the procedure as prescribed under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has not been followed. He further argues that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the matriculation certificate filed by the revisionist is forged one, in the alternative, even if the Court came to the said conclusion, the subsequent procedure as prescribed under section 94 should have been resorted which have not been done. Thus, the order suffers from material irregularity.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken to serve the opposite party no. 2 within two weeks.
The opposite party no. 2 shall file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 28.4.2021.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No. 745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia shall remain stayed as against the revisionist only. "
5. Pursuant to above order dated 19.3.2021, office has submitted a report dated 16.6.2021, stating therein that as per report received from C.J.M, Ballia notice has been served upon opposite party-2, personally.
6. However, inspite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2. Learned A.G.A. has filed a counter affidavit to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by revisionist.
7. Counsel for the parties agreed that instant revision be decided finally at the stage of admission without calling for the record. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties and as provided under Rules of the Court, present criminal revision was heard and is now being disposed of finally at the admission stage, itself.
8. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 4.11.2017, a prompt F.I.R. dated 4.11.2017 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Surya Dev Pandey and was registered as Case Crime No. 0745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dokati, District Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R, 12 persons namely, Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan, Vishal Singh @ Bua, Sonu Singh, Pawan Singh, Krishna Singh, Bhola Singh, Chandan Singh, Monu, Chotu, Ajeet Singh, Shivjogit Singh, Dharmendra Singh have been nominated as named accused.
9. Investigating Officer upon completion of investigation of concerned case crime number submitted the charge-sheet against accused including applicant. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance upon same. As offence complained of is triable by Court of Sessions, concerned Magistrate co
The court can rely on evidence, including radiological tests, to determine a person's age and may reject a claim of juvenility based on contradictory claims and evidence.
The court ruled that the age determination of a juvenile must prioritize the matriculation certificate over conflicting lower school records, maintaining adherence to statutory guidelines.
Point of Law : Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction -.CR.P.C makes provision for the High Court to exercise its Revisional Jurisdiction in furtherance of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court....
The burden of proof for age determination lies with the claimant, and reliable documentary evidence is crucial. The court's interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, emphasizes the importance....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence, such as school certificates, in determining juvenility, and the need for a careful and conscious approach....
The court must conduct a comprehensive enquiry to determine age when evidence is contradictory, ensuring adherence to the Juvenile Justice Act's guidelines for juvenile claims.
(1) Claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after final disposal of case – Delay in raising claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim – ....
The court's decision was influenced by the evidence from the Parivar Register and medical examination, which led to the rejection of the revisionist's claim of juvenility.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
