IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
(Juvenile) X – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 5477 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
POCSO Act - Age Determination - 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, P.S. Bewar, District-Mainpuri - [Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2023 arising out of case crime no. 183 of 2021 under sections 363, 366 and 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act] - The court discussed the age determination of the accused based on oral and documentary evidence, medical examination, and various certificates. The court also referred to the legal provisions and interpretations related to age determination under the POCSO Act and the general principles of determining age based on medical evidence. The court highlighted the importance of considering all relevant facts and circumstances in determining the age of the accused and emphasized that the medical age is merely an opinion and not conclusive proof. The court also cited relevant Supreme Court judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal revision challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2023, which set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the accused as a juvenile. The dispute revolved around the determination of the accused's age in a case under sections 363, 366 and 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the revisionist regarding the accused's date of birth was not reliable and that the Juvenile Justice Board had committed an error in determining the accused's age. The court concluded that there was no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court and dismissed the revision.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the reliability of the evidence regarding the accused's date of birth, the determination of the accused's age by the Juvenile Justice Board, and the correctness of the Appellate Court's decision in setting aside the Juvenile Justice Board's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence supporting the accused's claimed date of birth, the errors committed by the Juvenile Justice Board in determining the accused's age, and the principles established in relevant Supreme Court judgments regarding age determination and the application of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Final Decision: The revision lacked merit and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhr, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2023 arising out of case crime no. 183 of 2021 under sections 363, 366 and 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, P.S. Bewar, District-Mainpuri, whereby the order passed by J.J. Board dated 13.01.2023, by which accused was declared a juvenile, has been set aside and appeal has been allowed.
3. The relevant facts are as below:
4. This may be noted that the said order by the J.J. Board was passed after the matter of age determination was remanded for adjudication afresh, by the appellate court to the J.J. Board. Notably the J.J. Board had passed a fresh order in compliance of earlier direction by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2023. The freshly passed order dated 13.01.2023 declaring him about 17 and half years, was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2023 and appeal stood allowed. Now, the revisionist is before this Court, challenging the order dated 06.09.2023, passed in appeal.
5. The contentions of the revisionist in nutshell are that the appellate court did not consider that his date of birth was recorded as 15.05.2006 in the certificate issued by Subedar Pandey Inter College. The appellate court committed gross illegality in not considering the aforesaid document. Further that medical age was found 20-21 years and as per settled law, a variation of two years is possible on both the sides. Therefore the benefit ought to have been given to the accused by lowering the same by a margin of two years and not by margin of one year. Hence, he was about 17 years even by medical standards. The appellate court has ignored provisions of law and has passed an order which is illegal and improper.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contentions drawing the attention of this Court towards oral and documentary evidence in which date of birth of the revisionist has been mentioned as 05.07.2000.
7. I heard both the sides and perused the material on record. On behalf of juvenile, a High School certificate has been produced, which showed name of Juvenile ‘X’ son of Harish Chandra and Surajmukhi Devi and date of birth as 15.05.2006. This paper was admittedly produced before the appellate court for the first time. Another certificate dated 19.05.2021, issued by the Principal, Subedar Pandey Inter College, has been produced which mentioned his date of birth as 15.05.2006. Admittedly this certificate bears a date of issue as 19.052021 and it said that ‘X’ s/o Harish Chandra took admission in that Inter College in class 9th on 2.7.2019. It does not say th
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750
Abuzar Hossain vs. State of West Bengal
Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand
Jitendra Ram vs. State of Jharkhand
Parag Bhati vs. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 744
Rashipal Singh Solanki vs. State of U.P. and Others
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 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 age determination for juveniles must consider all available evidence, allowing a margin of error in ossification tests, ultimately declaring the petitioner juvenile.
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....
(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 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 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.
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.