Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Manvendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 2609 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2022
Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) act, 2015 - [Section 397, CrPC] - [Section 102, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) act, 2015] - [Section 94(2)(iii), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) act, 2015] - The court discussed the age determination of the respondent based on conflicting documents and ossification test report. It highlighted the provisions of Section 94(2)(iii) of the act of 2015 and emphasized the importance of reliable documents in determining the age of the accused. The court quashed the previous orders and declared the respondent as an adult, directing the transfer of the case to the regular court for trial.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the age of the respondent, who was accused in a criminal incident. Conflicting documents and an ossification test report were presented to determine the respondent's age.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ossification test report should not have been considered in the absence of reliable documents as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the act of 2015. It concluded that the respondent was an adult at the time of the incident and directed the transfer of the case to the regular court for trial.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the determination of the respondent's age, considering conflicting documents and the ossification test report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of reliable documents in age determination and highlighted the provisions of Section 94(2)(iii) of the act of 2015. It held that the ossification test report should not have been given undue importance in the absence of reliable documents.
Final Decision: The court quashed the previous orders, declared the respondent as an adult, and directed the transfer of the case to the regular court for trial.
JUDGMENT
G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This criminal revision under Section 397 of CrPC read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) act, 2015 (in short 'act, 2015') has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by 7th additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal appeal No.5/2021, by which the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed and the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena in Case No.123/2020, by which respondent No. 2 Satyabhan was declared as a Juvenile has been affirmed.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that on 14.03.2022 counsel for the applicant had submitted that he does not want to press present criminal revision. However, the important question of fact and law was involved and this Court was of the considered opinion that a suo motu cognizance of the revision can be taken. accordingly, the prayer for withdrawal of criminal revision was rejected.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that applicant is the son of complainant Gabbar Singh and nephew of deceased Padam Singh. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged on 01.08.2020 by the complainant Gabbar Singh on the allegation that on 30.07.2020 he was going on his tractor from Pachekha village to his field. Near the field of Gopal Sikarwar, one road of mud was under construction. Because of loose earth kept on the road, some earth fell in field of Gopal Sikarwar and on this issue, there was a hot talk between him and Gopal Sikarwar and the matter was pacified with the intervention of the family members. On 01.08.2020 at about 07:30 in the morning, his elder brother Padam Singh was going to his field and as soon as he reached in front of the house of Gopal Singh, then on the previous enmity, Gopal Sikarwar as well as awadhesh Sikarwar, Ramniwas, Sonu, ajab Singh, Rahul, Gaurav, Manoj, Raghvendra, Tunda @ Vikas and Vivek came there with Lathi and Farsa and in furtherance of common intention, they attacked his elder brother Padam Singh. after hearing the screams, of elder brother Padam Singh, complainant and his son Shaymveer, Manvendra and nephew Jaipal and Veer Singh went there. at that time, awadhesh with an intention to kill Padam Singh gave a Farsa blow on his head. another Farsa blow was given by Sonu on the head of Padam Singh, as a result, Padam Singh fell down on the ground. These persons intervened in the matter and accordingly, ajab Singh gave a Farsa blow on his head, Vivek gave a Lathi blow on his right hand. Shyamveer was assaulted by Ramniwas by Farsa on his head. His nephew Jaipal was assaulted by Rahul and Gaurav by Farsa, as a result, he sustained injury on his head. His nephew Veer Singh was assaulted by Monu and Raghvendra by Farsa who too sustained injury on his head. His son Manvendra was assaulted by Gopal Sikarwar by Lathi causing injury on his hand. Tunda @ Vikas fired from his firearm. In the meanwhile, his brother Ramratan and nephew Monu and other family members came on the spot and intervened in the matter.
4. The police after completing the investigation was of the view that respondent No. 2 is a Juvenile and, accordingly, he was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena. Father of the applicant preferred an application under Section 14 of the act, 2015 alleging therein that respondent No. 2 is major person and, therefore, he should be tried as an adult along with other accused persons. However, the Juvenile Justice Board by the impugned order dated 09.11.2020 passed in Case No.123/2020 came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 was aged about 17 years, 5 months and 22 days on the date of incident and, thus, it was directed that he was Juvenile on the date of incident and shall be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. The order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was challenged by the applicant. However, by the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed by 7th additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal appeal No.5/2021 has rejected the said a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of reliable documents in age determination and the limited relevance of ossification test reports as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the....
The determination of juvenility relies on the authenticity of the first academic records unless clear evidence of manipulation is presented, reinforcing the priority of academic documentation over la....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the priority given to the date of birth mentioned in educational documents for determining the age of a juvenile, as per the provisions of the Juve....
(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....
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
