Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.G. Chitre, J.
Gordhanlal @ Gordhan & one Anr.
Vs.
State of M.P.
Crl. Appeal No. 330 of 1996 (I)
Decided On: 03.08.1996
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Z.A. Warsi, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. S.H. Sen, Dy. G.A. for State
In determining the age of a juvenile accused, a school certificate indicating a specific birth date should be given preference over medical opinion based on approximation, especially when the medical opinion has a margin of error.
Headnote:
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1989 - SECTION 2(K), 24 - JUVENILE - DEFINITION - AGE DETERMINATION - MEDICAL OPINION VS. SCHOOL CERTIFICATE - PREFERENCE TO SCHOOL CERTIFICATE - TRIAL OF JUVENILE BY APPROPRIATE JUVENILE COURT - MANDATORY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Gordhanlal, was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The issue arose regarding his age at the time of the offense, as the Juvenile Justice Act, 1989 (Act) defines 'Juvenile' as a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years. The appellant claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, while the prosecution relied on medical opinion suggesting his age to be between 18-21 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the medical opinion regarding the appellant's age was not reliable and gave preference to the school certificate produced by the appellant, which indicated his date of birth as 3.5.1978, making him 15 years, 7 months, and 14 days old at the time of the offense. The court concluded that the appellant was a juvenile as per the definition in the Act and should have been tried by the Juvenile Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the medical opinion regarding the appellant's age should be given more weight than the school certificate produced by him. 2. Whether the appellant should have been tried by the Juvenile Court or the Additional Sessions Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Bhoopram vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1329), which held that a school certificate indicating a specific birth date should be given preference over medical opinion based on approximation, especially when the medical opinion has a margin of error. 2. The court held that the appellant was a juvenile as per the definition in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1989, and should have been tried by the Juvenile Court, in accordance with Section 24 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Gordhanlal, and directed that he be tried before the appropriate Juvenile Court for the charge of committing murder of the deceased. The court also acquitted the co-accused, Kamlabai, due to lack of sufficient evidence against her.
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The appellants have been convicted for an offence punishable u/s 304 pan I IPC and have been sentenced to under go 7 years RI with Fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default to undergo RI for 6 months by Addl. Sessions Judge, Agar Dist : Shajapur in the matter of S.T. 365/93 and that order is being assailed by the appellant by this appeal.
2. Shri ZA Warsi, appearing for the appellants argued that the learned trial Judge has committed error of law in holding that at the time of commission of the offence appellant Gordhan was Juvenile in view of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short). He pointed out that the learned Judge has committal an error by giving more importance to the medical opinion than the evidence of Shri Garg who has been examined in the sessions case by defence and who has proved school leaving certificate which is Ex. D. 4. I find substance in his argument because it is the evidence of Shri Garg DW-1 that that Ex. D. 4 is the school leaving certificate showing (sic) appellant Gordhanlal was born on 3.5.78. At the time of giving evidence he has bought the school register also with him which was showing that as per entry made in it, the birth date of the appellant Gordhanlal was 3.5.78. A question was asked to him in the cross-examination to which he answered by saying that according to him it was true that the villagers mention the age of pupil to be admitted in school by giving estimated age. This has been the base of reasoning which has been advanced by the learned trial Judge in his judgment in paragraph No. 14 and 15 for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 17.7.93, Gordhanlal was not 'Juvenile'.
3. Learned Judge has pointed out that an order was passed by learned Sessions Judge Shajapur on 8.1.94 in which the learned Judge had considered the point of the age of the appellant Gordhanlal. He pointed out that in the said order it has been mentioned that Gordhanlal was medically examined by Dr. Kapil Sahay and Dr. R.C. Sharma and it has been pointed out in the said order that Civil Surgeon Shajapur has opined in view of that medical report that on the date of said examination, the age of Gordhan was between 18-21 years. By mentioning this, the learned Judge concluded that the credence can not be given to school leaving certificate Ex. D. 4 when said order which was passed by Sessions Judge, Shajapur on 8.1.94 was not challenged by appellant - Gordhan by filing any revision against it. I do not agree with the learned Judge because his conclusion is not correct. The same sort of point was dealt with by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhoopram vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1329. In that case the said appellant had produced school certificate which was showing dale 24.6.1960' against the column 'date of birth'. In that case Chief Medical Officer opined that the said appellant appeared to be 30 years old on 30.4.87. In that case also the Sessions Judge had brushed aside the said school certificate by opinion that it was not unusual for parents to under estimate the age of their children by one or two years at the time of their admission in the school for securing benefit to the children in their future years.
4. In the present case the appellant Gordhan has proved by evidence of Shri Garg-Defence Witness that the said certificate D. 4 has the base from the entry from school register. Though said witness has answered that it is the habit of villagers to mention the age of pupils to be admitted in school by system of estimation, that can not be taken to be over riding phenomenon when the school certificate giving the correct idea about the specific birth date of appellant Gordhan is available on record. The opinion of Civil Suregon Shajapur based on the medical examination of Dr. Kapil and Dr. R.C. Sharma has base of approximation. It has been stated that the age may be between 18-21 yrs. It mea
