Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
Child In Conflict With Law – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Jain & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3522 of 2024
Decided On : 20-11-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice
Act Referred
ARMS ACT: S.25, S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302
JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT: S.7, S.7(a), S.94, S.94(2)(i), S.94(2)(ii)
JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN RULES: R.12
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested for a serious offence and claimed to be below 18 years, supported by school records stating his date of birth as 02.07.2006. Contrary documents were presented by the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order for fresh enquiry was upheld as necessary due to suspected genuineness of documents supporting age claims.
Issues: The central issue was whether the accused was under 18 at the time of the offence and the validity of conflicting documents regarding his age.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it is essential to conduct a comprehensive enquiry when conflicting documents about age are presented, affirming that the age must be ascertained under provisions of Section 94 of the Act. Thus, an inquiry must be held to ensure proper determination of age and prevent misuse of protective laws.
Result: Criminal Revision is dismissed.
For the Appellant :Shri R.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate With Ms. Bhavya
Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri Pradeep Katare, Adv., Shri Abhishek Bhadauria, Public Prosecutor
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. age determination and legal jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the revisionist's age. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. procedural rules for age determination. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. preference of documentation in age determination. (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. conclusion on legality of remand for age determination. (Para 17 , 23) |
| 6. contradictory evidence in age verification. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. need for comprehensive enquiry. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 8. limits of aadhaar for age verification. (Para 21) |
| 9. final order dismissing the revision. (Para 24) |
ORDER :
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 /401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order dated 12th July, 2024 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Criminal Revision Nos. 23/2024 & 25/2024, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has remanded the matter to the JMFC, Bhind, for conducting fresh enquiry to find out as to whether accused/child in conflict with law was below 18 years of age on the date of offence or not.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the accused/child in conflict- with-law was arrested by police Station Kotwali, Distt. Bhind, in connection with Crime No.138/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 , 27 of the Arms Act. After arrest, accused/ child in conflict-with-law was produced before the JMFC, Bhind, treating him to be major. Before the JMFC, Bhind, an application was preferred on behalf of the accused/ child in conflict-with-law that he was below 18 years of age on the date of offence, therefore, his trial is to be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The trial Court conducted enquiry and vide order dated 19.03.2024 came to the conclusion that on the date of offence child in conflict-with-law was aged 17 years 6 months and 18 days and sent the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing.
3. Against the said order, complainant and State of M.P. filed separate revision applications before the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, on the ground that order of the JMFC, Bhind, was not in accordance with law and proper enquiry was not conducted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision applications and remanded the matter to the JMFC, Bhind, for conducting fresh enquiry. Hence, this revision has been preferred bdy the accused/child in conflict-with-law.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that order passed by the learned Revisional Court is unjust and illegal, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. There was no illegality, impropriety and perversity in the order passed by the learned JMFC, Bhind. As per the mark-sheets of revisionist of class 5th, 8th and 10th the actual date of birth of the revisionist is 02.07.2006, and thus, the revisionist was below 18 years of age on the date of incident, and therefore, the order passed by the learned JMFC, Bhind, did not warrant any interference. The revisionist was initially admitted in Jaiguru Dev Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bindwa, Distt. Bhind. Copy of the application form has been filed as Annexure P/5 showing the date of birth of the revisionist as 02.07.2006 and not as 08.06.2005. In support of this contention, revisionist has also filed copy of horoscope (submitted along with application form in Jaiguru Dev Prathmik Vidyalaya) as Annexure P/6, admission register of the school as Annexure P/7 and a copy of the certificate issued by the Head Master of the said school as Annexure P/8. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred Section 94 (2)(ii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Act of 2015”).
5d. On the strength of above arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist submits that order passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge remanding the matter to the JMFC, Bhind, for fresh enquiry is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the comp
