Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1429 (JHR)

Rajesh Mahatha v. State of Jharkhand

2006-12-21

D.K.SINHA

body2006
Order The petitioner, Rajesh Mahatha, has preferred this petition under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Children) Act, 2000, for setting' aside the order impugned passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka in Enquiry No. 575 of 2006 (arising out of Nagar Deoghar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 46 of 2006). 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the mother-in-law as well as elder brother of the husband of his sister, Ruby Devi (since deceased) came to the house of the informant, Babloo Pasi and communicated that Ruby Devi had consumed poison. He immediately came out and went to the Main Road Bermasia where he found that his sister was unconscious in the tempo and his brother-in-law i.e. husband of Ruby Devi was there with her. He took his sister with them to the Sadar Hospital, Deoghar where she was admitted and in course of treatment she died on 15.1.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. It is further alleged that prior to her death, Ruby Devi used to communicate the wife of the informant that her husband was not extending love to her and was always demanding money. The informant was also cautioned by the petitioner, Rajesh Mahatha i.e. the husband of the deceased that in sufficient dowry was given to him in marriage and he put a demand of motor cycle as well as wristwatch, failing to which he threatened that his (informant) sister would be driven out from his house. The informant, therefore, had reason to believe that on account of constant pressure by the petitioner for money, motor cycle and wristwatch and upon being fed up with the constant demand his sister committed suicide by consuming poison. Upon the statement of the informant, Deoghar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 was instituted on 15.1.2006 for the offence under sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Ruby Devi while he was 13 years and Ruby Devi was 20 years old. Since Ruby Devi was not bearing child after her marriage, it resulted into her frustration, as a result of which she committed suicide though the petitioner tried his level best to save her life by extending prompt and proper treatment at the hospital. Since Ruby Devi was not bearing child after her marriage, it resulted into her frustration, as a result of which she committed suicide though the petitioner tried his level best to save her life by extending prompt and proper treatment at the hospital. Advancing his argument learned counsel submitted that parents of the deceased as well as her husband and in-laws used to reside in the same locality and there was no allegation of torture or assault to the deceased at any point of time prior to her death. His age was assessed at the time of judicial remand about 16 years and he was sent to remand home on. 17.1.2006. The petitioner was produced before the Medical Board and his age was assessed about 17 to 18 years on 3.5.2006. If the medical report is presumed to be true, the learned counsel submitted, then the petitioner was much below 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence on. 14.1.2006. But ignoring the report of the Medical Board, the Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka assessed the are of the petitioner more than 18 years at the time of occurrence on the basis of ' the voter list and his physical appearance. The finding of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka is misconceived as beyond the provision of Rule 22 of Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions now pending in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 181 of 2006. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, of the case, I find that Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 has devised Rule 22 being the procedure to be followed by the Juvenile Justice Board in holding enquiry in determination of the age of a Juvenile. Rule 22(5)(iv) provides that the opinion of the Medical Board, duly constituted, would be the guiding factor in determination of the age of a Juvenile, subject to margin of one year in absence of the birth certificate of Juvenile in conflict with law. I find that the said provision of Rule has been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions Court. 5. I find that the said provision of Rule has been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions Court. 5. In the circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 3.6.2006 whereby and whereunder the age of the petitioner was determined more than 18 years is set aside and the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar is directed to pass appropriate order returning back the records of the Juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law as early as possible. 6. With aforesaid observation this Cr. Revision application is allowed.