Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 503 (PAT)

Devendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-29

MANDHATA SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. A claim was made on behalf of the petitioner to be a juvenile was thoroughly enquired. Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence, oral as well as documentary. A Medical Board was also constituted to consider all the aspects but petitioner has been assessed major. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner doubts the conclusion reached by Juvenile Justice Board as well as of the appellate court on two points. First, the register appearing petitioners age was his first attended school and second, the Medical Board opined the age of the petitioner in between 18 to 19 years. So, lower one, i.e., 18 should be accepted with a further aid that Medical Board was constituted after nine months of the occurrence. 4. As about the first point, Juvenile Justice Board has thoroughly discussed, considered and has rightly observed that the petitioner was admitted in the school in Class-ll without mentioning that he was first attended in that school while the admission of rest of the students is in Class- I. Date of birth of the students including this petitioner is shown of the year 1996. 5. Now come to the second point that opinion of the doctor should be accepted in lower side. For that a judgment delivered by myself in Cr. Revision no.1726 of (Murari Yadav @ Murari Rai V/s. State of Bihar) is cited. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 lays down guidelines about acceptance of the material in determining the age in absence of first matriculation or equivalent certificates (1) date of birth certificate from the school other than a play school first attended (2) birth certificate given by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or a Panchayat and in absence of all the three a Medical Board may be constituted which is done in this case and in absence definite opinion, age in lower side shall be accepted. 6. Here, in the case petitioner is shown in between 18 to 19 years. Certainly examined after nine months of the occurrence which date is only relevant but without any reasons Board has opined the age of the petitioner 20 years which is against the principles said in Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Certainly examined after nine months of the occurrence which date is only relevant but without any reasons Board has opined the age of the petitioner 20 years which is against the principles said in Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. So, conclusion reached by Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions judge, Sitamarhi, is not liable to be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 30.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal no.78 of 2009 is set aside. The Court below is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law including Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.