Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 823 (JHR)

Manowar Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-04

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2014
Order The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order/ judgment dated 05.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Sahibganj in Enquiry No.01 of 2013, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for declaring him to be a juvenile, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition had been filed in the court below for declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile, as he was aged about 17 years on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 25.05.2011 and his date of birth is mentioned as 05.08.1994 in the school certificate, issued by the Jamia Shahaganjpeer School, Bhagalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2007 (in short J.J Rules) prescribes that to determine the age of juvenile, the enquiry has to be conducted by the Court or by the Board; firstly by considering the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate, if available has to be looked into; in the absence thereof, the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school); in the absence whereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation or any certified authority or panchayat should be considered and if there is any doubt regarding the documents then a medical opinion can be sought from the duly constituted Medical Board. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below has not appreciated the fact that during enquiry E.W. -2, Principal of the Jamia Shahaganjpeer School, Bhagalpur had deposed that the age of the petitioner is mentioned 05.08.1994 in the Register and the E.W. -3, father of the petitioner, had also stated the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.08.1994; that the document related to the admission register of Jamia Shahaganjpeer School, Bhagalpur was exhibited as Ext. -1, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 05.08.1994. Thus, there is material on record to show that the petitioner was aged about 17 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 25.05.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the court below did not believe the documents, then the order should have been passed for constitution of Medical Board for seeking medical opinion in terms of the provision of Rule 12 (3) (b). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the court below did not believe the documents, then the order should have been passed for constitution of Medical Board for seeking medical opinion in terms of the provision of Rule 12 (3) (b). On the above grounds, he has assailed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is evident from the impugned order that the said Madarsa is not recognized and no proper document was produced during enquiry to show that the said Madrasa was recognized by competent authority accordingly the learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 6. On going through the impugned order, it is evident that the father of the petitioner has stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.08.1994. Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2007 stipulates the procedure of enquiry for determining the age of a juvenile, as under :- “12 (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining - (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available, and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/ her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while 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 and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a), (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law”. It also transpires that the learned court below has disbelieved the E.W. -2, Principal, as the Principal in his cross – examination has admitted that the said Madarsa is not recognized and no paper was produced of any competent authority. 7. Since there is doubt regarding the papers and entry, the learned court below is directed to seek medical opinion regarding the age of the petitioner by constituting a Medical Board. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sahibganj shall direct the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon to constitute a Medical Board to determine the age of the petitioner, within four weeks, from the date of this order. 8. With the said direction and observations, the present application is hereby disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated by FAX, if the cost is deposited by the petitioner.