Back
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Mohd. Tayyab – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.
3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.8.2019, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2017 (Mohd. Tayyab v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.374 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr and the order dated 16.11.2017, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr in Case No.84 of 2015 (State v. Tayyab), whereby the application of revisionist to declare him as juvenile with regard to above case has been rejected.
4. The factual matrix of the case in brief relevant for the present revision are that the present revisionist is an accused in Case Crime No.374 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC. The FIR of present case was lodged at the instance of one Safique- the first informant. He lodged the FIR against revisionist with allegation that on 15.4.2014, at around 2:00 P.M. accuse
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 determination of a juvenile's age should consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the need for a just view to ensure justi....
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.
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 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 established that reliable documentation and the benefit of doubt in age determination favor the accused in juvenile cases.
Educational certificates must be prioritized over medical evaluations in age determination cases under the Juvenile Justice Act.
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
