Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 845 (JHR)

Sudhir Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-07

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2014
Order The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 05.12.2013, passed in S.T. Case No. 124 of 2009 (G.R. Case No. 592 of 2008), by learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby the petition of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the Rule 12 prescribes the procedure for determining the age of a juvenile; that in case the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate or date of birth certificate from the school and the birth certificate given by a Corporation of municipal authority or a Panchayat is not produced or is doubtful then a medical opinion can be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board regarding the determination of the age of the juvenile or child. 3. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had withdrawn the application for declaring him to be the juvenile on 02.02.2013. Subsequently, it was discovered by him that he was in possession of the certificate issued by the Registrar of the Gram Panchayat and he had filed a petition on 12.09.2013 for declaring him to be the juvenile but the same was rejected on the basis that in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the age has been ascertained as 24 years; that the learned lower court has failed to appreciate that age has been recorded only on assessment which is merely on estimation. It has been submitted that if the court was in doubt regarding the veracity of the documents, it could have ordered for medical opinion by constitution of a Medical Board in terms of Rule 12 of the J.J. Rules, 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the same and submitted that if the petitioner was in possession of such a document, it could have easily been produced in course of enquiry, and in fact the document is dated 31.08.2012 whereas he had filed the petition for declaring himself to be a juvenile on 28.09.2012 and it shows that the petitioner has not come with clean hands rather he wants to delay the trial; that the documents were found to be questionable. 5. 5. Having heard the counsels and on perusal of the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, which reads as under: 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age- (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (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 the one year. 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 the 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. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of Section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father was examined as enquiry witness no. 2 and he must have been aware of the said document because the petition for declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile was filed on 28.09.2012 i.e. after the date of issuance of the certificate by the Panchayat. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father was examined as enquiry witness no. 2 and he must have been aware of the said document because the petition for declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile was filed on 28.09.2012 i.e. after the date of issuance of the certificate by the Panchayat. Since the documents are questionable, the trial court can direct for a medical opinion from the Chief Medical Officer, Jamshedpur by ordering him to constitute a Medical Board for determination of the age of the petitioner in terms of Rule 12 of J.J. Rules, 2007. The Medical Board shall submit the report within two weeks. With the said direction and observation, the revision is, hereby, disposed of.