Back
A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Thoudam Michael Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur Represented By The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner (home), Government of Manipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT ORDER (CAV)
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J. - The present Cril.Rev.Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short JJ Act) for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Fast Track Special Court No.1, Manipur in Cril. Misc. Case No.39 of 2021. By the impugned order, the learned Special Court FTSC No.1, Manipur held that the petitioner/accused was not below the age of 18 years at the relevant time of the incident. The petitioner filed Cril. Misc. Case No.39 of 2021 before the FTSC No.1, Manipur under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (JJ Act), 2015 for remitting the Spl. Trial Case No.04/17/93/2020 in C/W FIR No.89(04)2013 Singjamei Police Station U/S 354- A/376 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 where the petitioner who was accused in the present case prayed for declaring him as a juvenile at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident and to remit the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Imphal West for inquiry as per law.
2. Heard Mr. Y. Devadutta, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Borish Laishram, learned counsel for the petition
The court determined that documents indicating age must be prioritized as per Juvenile Justice Act, with the accused confirmed as a juvenile based on familial ages and educational certificates.
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 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.
(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 – ....
Educational certificates must be prioritized over medical evaluations in age determination cases under the Juvenile Justice Act.
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 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....
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
