Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1582 (JHR)

Sohan Bedia v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated. 24.7.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in G.R. No. 1663 of 2012 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012, rejecting the application filed by the accused petitioner to declare him a juvenile, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. 3. The petitioner has been made accused in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1663 of 2012 for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C. The petitioner filed his application before the Court below stating that he was a juvenile and accordingly, the Court of C.J.M. made an inquiry into the claim of the petitioner. It appears from the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M. that during inquiry the petitioner had produced his School Leaving Certificate wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 4.1.1995 and some witnesses were examined. The impugned order shows that for the reasons recorded in the order, the Court below did not place reliance upon the School Leaving Certificate is sued in favour of the petitioner. The reasons recorded by the learned C.J.M. for not placing reliance on the School Leaving Certificate are valid and cogent reasons. 4. It appears from the impugned order that thereafter Medical Board was constituted for ascertaining the age of the petitioner and the Medical Board submitted its report in the Court below on 21.7.2012, wherein the Medical Board had opined that the age of the petitioner was about 18 years as on 20.7.2012. The court below however stated that at the time of the remand, the age of the petitioner was assessed to be 20 years and accordingly, has rejected the application of the petitioner for declaring him a juvenile. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Court below. 5. The court below however stated that at the time of the remand, the age of the petitioner was assessed to be 20 years and accordingly, has rejected the application of the petitioner for declaring him a juvenile. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the procedure is prescribed for ascertaining the age of a juvenile or a child in conflict with law in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Rule 12 of the said Rules clearly provides that in absence of any birth certificate from the school etc., the age of the juvenile in conflict with law has to be determined on the basis of the medical opinion of the duly constituted Medical Board which shall declare the age of the juvenile or the child and the same shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards the juvenile in conflict with law. This rule also provides that if considered necessary, the benefit is to be given to the child by considering his/her age in the lower side, within the margin of one year. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal as the petitioner's age was found to be about 18 years by the duly constituted Medical Board as on 20.7.2012. The date of occurrence being 22.5.2012, the petitioner was certainly below the age of 18 years and as such, he had to be declared a juvenile. 6. The learned counsel for the State on the other .hand opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality/irregularity in the impugned order. 7. After having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The record clearly shows that the School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner was not relied upon by the Court below, and in my considered opinion, rightly so, in view of the discussions made in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Court sought the opinion of the Medical Board for ascertaining the age of the petitioner and according to the report of the Medical Board the petitioner was aged about 18 years as on 20.7.2012. Accordingly, the Court sought the opinion of the Medical Board for ascertaining the age of the petitioner and according to the report of the Medical Board the petitioner was aged about 18 years as on 20.7.2012. Rule 12 of the Rules clearly provides that in the absence of any school certificate etc., the report of the Medical Board shall be the conclusive proof of the age of the juvenile. If the age of the petitioner is taken to be about 18 years as on 20.7.2012, he was certainly below the age of 18 years on 22.5.2012 and as such he had to be declared juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 22.5.2012. Indeed there is also the provision for giving the benefit to the child by considering his/her age in the lower side within the margin of one year. In my considered view the Courts below have erred in ignoring the finding of the Medical Board in view of the age of the petitioner assessed at the time of his remand. As such, the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from legal infirmity and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh, in G.R. No. 1663 of 2012 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012, as also the order dated 18.8.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012 are hereby, set aside. The Court below is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law as discussed above. This application is accordingly allowed.