Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 534 (JHR)

Rangbahadur Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-13

JAYA ROY

body2009
Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application for quashing the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. Case No. 183 of 2007 rejecting the petitioner's prayer to declare him a juvenile. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that a Fardbeyan of Jasdeo Singh has been recorded on 5.8.2004 at 1:00 P.M. at village Bhandalia by Sub-Inspector N.P. Deo, where the informant has stated that on that very date at about 5:00 A.M., the informant's son, namely, Baidyanath Singh had gone to village Morbey to arrange labours. The informant was in his house. At about 7:00 AM, the informant's grandsons, Manish Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh' came to their house running and weeping and informed the informant that their father, Baidyanath Singh, while returning from village-Morbey on bicycle and reached near Bhimbarrage, he was intercepted by co-villagers, Giriwar Singh, his son Rangbahadur Singh, and one unknown person and they fired from their pistol and thereafter, all of them fled away. At this information, the informant raised Hulla and went to the place of occurrence alongwith them. Both the grandsons and the villagers found his son Baidyanath Singh lying in pool of blood having injuries on the ribs and back. The cycle and the Chappal of the deceased were also lying there. It is further alleged that there is some enmity regarding purchase of land and due to this reason the son of the informant has been murdered. The case was committed to court of sessions and it is pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa for trial in S.T. Case No. 183 of 2007. During the pendency of the case in the trial court, the petitioner filed an application to declare him a juvenile as per provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 under Sections 2k and 7a of the Act. It is submitted that the applicant-petitioner, Rangbahadur Singh was below 18 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence as his date of birth is 5th November, 1986. 4. The petitioner, to prove his case, examined three witnesses in course of enquiry. Among them, EW-1 is Surendra Kumar Singh, an Assistant in the Harvey Sone Vally Ucchangal Vidyalaya Cement Works, Japla, EW-2, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh @ Giriwar Singh, is the father of the applicant and EW-3, Mrs. 4. The petitioner, to prove his case, examined three witnesses in course of enquiry. Among them, EW-1 is Surendra Kumar Singh, an Assistant in the Harvey Sone Vally Ucchangal Vidyalaya Cement Works, Japla, EW-2, Rajeshwar Prasad Singh @ Giriwar Singh, is the father of the applicant and EW-3, Mrs. Shail Singh, the mother of the applicant-petitioner. He further filed Register of registration of private students (Exhibit-1), Board Admit Card, Marks-sheet, Certificate and Tabulation Chart of the Board and a certificate of the Headmaster of the "Harvey Sone Valley Ucchangal Vidyalaya Cement Works, Japla" which are marked as Exhibits in the said case. 5. The trial court has referred the matter to the Medical Board and the Medical Board submitted his report which is marked as Exhibit-A. On the other hand, voter list of 2003 was produced and marked as Exhibit-B which shows that the age of the applicant-petitioner is 25 years in the year 2007. The trial court considering the oral and documentary evidence has given his findings that the petitioner was much more than 18 years on the (:late of occurrence and rejected the petitioner-applicant's prayer to declare him as juvenile. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the informant states that in view of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, trial court has rightly held that the petitioner is not below the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged occurrence, therefore, the impugned order is perfectly legal. Learned counsel appearing for the State also submits that the trial court has considered the Exhibit-A and the Exhibit-B and also assessed the age of the petitioner by his physical appearance when he appeared before the trial court. Thus, in view of all these oral and documentary evidences, the counsel of the informant submits that the court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile. 7. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the petitioner has submitted the certificates of the High School. Examination Board in which he has appeared in the year 2002 and his date of birth was registered as 5.11.1986 in the Board Examination. 7. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the petitioner has submitted the certificates of the High School. Examination Board in which he has appeared in the year 2002 and his date of birth was registered as 5.11.1986 in the Board Examination. According to the sub-rule 5 of Rule 22 of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 which lays down the procedure to be followed by the Board in holding enquiries and the determination of age, which reads as follows:- "(5) In every case concerning a juvenile or a child, the Board shall either obtain; (i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; or (ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and (iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, (regarding his age and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be record a finding in respect of his age)." 8. I, therefore, think that the trial court should consider first the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority, or a date ~ birth certificate from the school first attended, or the matriculation or the equivalent certificate, if available. The authority concerned can refer the matter to the Medical Board only in absence of the aforesaid documents. The petitioner has submitted his' admit-card, marks-sheet and certificate of High School Examination of the year, 2002 when he appeared in the said examination. In the said certificates, date of birth was registered as 5.11.1986. Therefore, it is sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.11.1986. The date of alleged occurrence is 5.8.2004. Thus, it is very clear that the age of the petitioner on the alleged date of the occurrence i.e. on 5.8.2004 was less than 18 years. 9. Even; I find from Exhibit-A (Medical Report), the Medical Board has assessed the age of the petitioner about 2021 years on the date of examination i.e. in August, 2008. Thus, it is very clear that the age of the petitioner on the alleged date of the occurrence i.e. on 5.8.2004 was less than 18 years. 9. Even; I find from Exhibit-A (Medical Report), the Medical Board has assessed the age of the petitioner about 2021 years on the date of examination i.e. in August, 2008. Thus, the report of the Medical Board also shows that on the date of the occurrence i.e. 5.8.2004, the petitioner was below 18 years of age. Therefore, the report of the Medical Board also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. 10. In my .opinion, when the petitioner has submitted his certificate issued by the High School Examination Board, which is not discarded as forged by the trial court, then the trial court should not go to consider other things for determination of the age of the petitioner. Thus, I find merit in this revision application. Accordingly, the impugned order is, hereby, set aside and the revision application is allowed and the petitioner is "declared as juvenile as he had not completed 18 years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence. The case is remitted back to the court below for passing an appropriate order for referring the case of the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board.