Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SADHNA RANI THAKUR, J.
Nadeem Alias Kaliya – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 2913 of 2019
Decided on : 07-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 - Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25, 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94, 7A, (1), 49 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12, (3a) - Punishment - Revision preferred against judgment and order passed in Juvenile Criminal Appeal – Appellate court has rightly placed reliance on evidence on record other than medical examination report of accused and has reached at a right conclusion. [Para 43]
Finding of the Court: Opposite party no. 2 that as per statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused he disclosed himself to be 26 years old thus, according to his own admission his age on date of incident becomes about 22 years and 11 months - In voter list also in year 2017, his age is shown to be 40 years, thus, his age becomes 26 years on date of incident - As per judgment of trial court, revisionist was acquitted for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act on ground that he was having a valid gun license in his name - Thus, it was argued by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in his valid gun license, on two agreement to sale and power of attorney, revisionist by putting his thumb impression/signatures himself has admitted to be major on date of incident - Appellate court has rightly placed reliance on evidence on record other than medical examination report of accused and has reached at a right conclusion.
Result: Revision dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2019 passed in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut.
3. As per facts of the case Sessions Trial Nos. 668, 669 and 671 of 2003, Case Crime No. 131 of 2003 and 134 of 2003 respectively under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut were decided by the trial court vide judgment dated 04.08.2007 and all the four accused persons were found guilty. The case was decided into capital punishment. Criminal Reference No. 21 of 2007 -State Vs. Khalid and others, was made to this court to confirm the capital punishment. The accused persons also filed Criminal Appeal No. 5169 of 2007 -Khalid and others Vs. State of U.P. before this court. Both the reference and criminal appeal were heard together by the Division Bench of this court. The reference was dismissed and the appeal was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2008. The death sentence was set aside and was commuted to life imprisonment i.e. imprisonment for whole life with the provision that the accused persons shall not be entitled to be considered for remission of sentence, unless they have undergone an actual term of 20 years imprisonment including the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC as well as sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded to them under Section 307/149 and 148 IPC and the conviction of accused appellants Tahir and Moinuddin and the sentence awarded to them under Section 25 Arms Act were upheld. All the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The convict/revisionist along with other co-accused persons was thereafter transferred to Central Jail, Agra to serve the sentence.
4. One Sister Sheeba Jose, a lawyer and human right activist, filed a Public Interest Litigation No. 855 of 2012 (Sister Sheeba Jose Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court for release of the prisoners, who may have been below 18 years of age at the time of incident and were detained in various district or Central Jail. For Agra, Central Jail a list of 18 prisoners was made for grant of such relief. This writ petition was decided by the division bench of this Court vide order dated 24.05.2012 and directions were issued to the District Judges, who were also the Chairpersons of their Legal Services Authorities to see that the efficient lawyers were appointed for the purpose of providing legal aid to the prisoners, who were unable to engage private lawyers and who were mentioned in the list furnished by the State Government and described to be below 18 years in age on the date of commission of offence. The present applicant applied (through Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra) before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority for providing him legal aid. On his application, the District Legal Services Authority appointed an advocate for providing him legal aid and thereafter on 22.03.2017 an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra claiming therein that he was juvenile at the time of incident and as he was not literate and having no documentary evidence regarding his age, as such by constituting a medical board his age may be determined. His medical was done by the medical board and on the basis of report of medical board dated 19.04.2017 the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Agra vide order dated 22.04.2017 declared the revisionist juvenile on the date of incident.
5. On various grounds and vide order dated 03.0
Section 7A(1) is to mention here as procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.
The medical evidence should not be treated as conclusive proof of age, and the court should seek additional evidence, such as school records and documentary evidence, to arrive at the right conclusio....
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of a person's age, especially in cases involving the Juvenile Justice Act and the POCSO Act, should be based on credible and....
Educational certificates must be prioritized over medical evaluations in age determination cases under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The court established that reliable documentation and the benefit of doubt in age determination favor the accused in juvenile cases.
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.
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....
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
