Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2725 (ALL)

Raju v. State Of U. P.

2016-08-08

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Bhargava, learned counsel for the revisionist along with Sri Anoop Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad) in S.T. No. 356 of 2012, State vs. Raju, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. whereby the application for declaring the revisionist as juvenile has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the following rulings:- "Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 Law Suit (SC) 607" "Ali Mohammad vs. State of U.P. and 7 others decided on 25.08.2015 by this Court. 4. Rule 12 (3) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 is quoted as below:- "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 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. 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." 5. Thus, it appears that where the matriculation or equivalent certificate is available it will be given the top most priority. 6. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. 7. Applying these principles, it is clear that a matriculation or equivalent certificate of a child is, by Rule 12, regarded as the highest rated option. In case, the certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. 8. In the impugned order dated 22.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad), it has been clearly mentioned that the certificate of qualification with mark-sheet of secondary examination held in March, 2010 by the Board of School Education, Haryana, the date of birth of revisionist-Raju has been mentioned as 10.07.1994 (Tenth July Nineteen hundred ninety four). This document is of paramount importance and no other document will be considered while making determination of age of the revisionist-Raju. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad) in his impugned order dated 22.04.2013 has erred in law while not taking into consideration the aforementioned certificate of qualification with mark-sheet of secondary examination held in March, 2010 by the Board of School Education, Haryana. 9. In the light of the above discussions, this criminal revision is liable to be allowed with the following directions to the Learned Sessions Judge, Hapur :- (i). 9. In the light of the above discussions, this criminal revision is liable to be allowed with the following directions to the Learned Sessions Judge, Hapur :- (i). The revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur (Ghaziabad) in S.T. No. 356 of 2012, State vs. Raju, is hereby set aside. (ii). The Learned Sessions Judge, Hapur is directed to hold a fresh inquiry in the matter and to decide the question of juvenility of the revisionist-Raju in S.T. No. 356 of 2012, State vs. Raju, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Garhmukteshwar, District-Hapur within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.