Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10300
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J
Vidhi Viruddh Balika – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
CRR 444/2023
Sanjay Kumar Patel,
In determining the age of a juvenile in conflict with law, statutory hierarchy mandates priority be given to school or matriculation certificates. Medical ossification tests are only admissible as a last resort where such documentary evidence is unavailable, and liberal interpretation must favor the plea of juvenility.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94(2) - Determination of age of juvenile in conflict with law - Statutory priority for documents - Provision mandates seeking evidence through school date of birth certificate/matriculation certificate first; birth certificate from municipal authority/panchayat only in absence of the former; and medical/ossification test only as a last resort - Appellate Court erred in placing primary reliance on hospital records and birth certificate without verification, while ignoring superior documentary evidence of matriculation. (Paras 10, 15, 23)
(B) Evidence of Age - Evidentiary value - Ossification test - Medical opinion regarding bone development is merely an approximation and not conclusive for age determination - Where documentary evidence exists as per statutory hierarchy, ossification test should not be relied upon to override such documents - Benefit of juvenility to be extended in borderline cases to ensure the protective intent of the legislation is preserved. (Paras 11, 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to be declared a juvenile at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. The primary juvenile justice board had declared the applicant a juvenile based on school records. However, an appellate court subsequently set aside this order, declaring the applicant a major based on a nursing home register and a birth certificate issued by a municipal authority. The present revision challenges the appellate court's order for ignoring the statutory hierarchy of evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellate court incorrectly prioritized secondary evidence over academic certificates. The academic school records clearly established the date of birth, which legally takes precedence under the statutory framework. The documents relied upon by the appellate court were not properly proved by the issuing authority and were inconsistent with school records.
Issues: The central issue was the correct legal hierarchy of documents for determining the age of a juvenile in conflict with law and the evidentiary weight to be assigned to ossification tests versus school records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the governing legislation, there is a clear hierarchy for age determination. Documentary evidence from academic institutions holds the highest evidentiary value. Medical ossification tests are only permissible in the absence of valid school or municipal certificates, and even then, they provide only an approximation. Following a liberal interpretation, courts should lean in favor of the accused in borderline cases to avoid defeating the purpose of the protective legal framework.
Result: Revision allowed. The appellate court's order is set aside, and the findings of the juvenile board are restored.
1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “J.J. Act, 2015”) assailing the appeal judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.478/2022 (Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. & Others), whereby the appeal preferred by father of the deceased against the order dated 21.11.2019, passed by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 21.11.2019 whereby the juvenile in conflict with law was found to be below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence. By the impugned order, she has been declared as major on the date of commission of offence.
2. As per the allegations, in the intervening night of 27-28/07/2019 juvenile in conflict with law alongwith two others committed murder of Piyush Jain who was her lover. Charge sheet was filed against applicant juvenile in conflict with law before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal. The application was filed by the father of the deceased Piyush Jain before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal stating that on the date of commission of offence, she was a major and was not a juvenile. Enquiry was conducted and statements of three witnesses were recorded. Juvenile Justice Board after examining the documents and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence i.e. on 27.07.2019 applicant was a juvenile and was below 18 years of age. The said order was challenged before the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal under Section 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015 and by impugned order dated 14.12.2022, on the basis of birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Sagar & on the basis of entry made in the register of Manokamna Nursing Home, Sagar learned ASJ came to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence applicant was not a juvenile as her date of birth is 23.09.1999 and she was 18 years and 10 months old and set aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and directed that applicant be tried for commission of offence along with other co-accused persons in Sessions Court for commission of murder.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that on the date of commission of offence, she was a minor and on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the school certificate, charge sheet was filed against her in the Juvenile Justice Board and Juvenile Justice Board by its order dated 21.11.2019 assessed her age below 18 years on the date of commission of offence, but learned appellate Court on the basis of so called birth certificate issued after the date of commission of offence and only on the basis of entries made in the register of Manokamna Nursing Home has wrongly come to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence, she was above 18 years of age. It is submitted that applicant was a juvenile, on the date of commission of offence and same is apparent from her matriculation certificate. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 21.11.2019 rightly declared her to be 17 years and 11 months old on the date of commission of offence. It is contended that on the basis of birth certificate and register of the nursing home which was not proved by doctor Saini who runs the nursing home, it was not justified on the part of the appellate Court to accept them as true and set aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and to declare her above 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence.
4. It is submitted that on the date of alleged commission of offence i.e. on 27.07.2019, she was a juvenile and in this regard findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board after enquiry were in accordance with the provisions of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Board, 2015. Appellate Court has not properly considered her juvenility in the true letter and spirit of law. Therefore, it is prayed that i
