Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 336 (JHR)

Shibu Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-16

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 08.03.2022 Passed in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2020 arising out of Bagbera P.S.Case No.97 of 2019 registered under Section-395 I.P.C. whereby and where under the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile though he was aged about 17 Years and 4 Months at the time of occurrence on 12.08.2019 as per his School Admission Register. 3. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is accused in connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No. 97 of 2019 (ST Case No. 71/2020) registered u/s 395 of IPC and he has been facing trial after framing of the charge. Further it has been submitted that this petitioner made an application before the learned court below for declaring him juvenile in ST Case No. 71/2020 on the basis of school certificate. It has been pointed out that during the court inquiry in order to determine the age of the petitioner on the date of occurrence for declaring him juvenile the learned court below had called the school admission register in question along with the competent person from the school management to adduce the evidence on the point of the age. Accordingly the school clerk was examined before the learned court below during the course of enquiry and the School Admission Register was marked as Ext. 1 in which the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 10.04.2002. Accordingly the school clerk was examined before the learned court below during the course of enquiry and the School Admission Register was marked as Ext. 1 in which the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 10.04.2002. But the learned court below has ignored the entire facts and passed the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 totally discarding the evidence adduced by the school clerk along with the documentary evidence i.e. the School Admission Register of the school in which it was admitted i.e. in the admission register the date of birth of the petitioner has been written as 10.04.2002 which clearly establishes the facts that the petitioner was admitted in school on 10.04.2013 in class VI where the date of birth has been mentioned as 10.04.2002 but without assigning any rational reason, the learned court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner to declare him juvenile on the ground that no documents has been produced by the petitioner about his age proof of Class I or what was the basis of indicating the age of petitioners as 10.04.2022 in the school admission register which is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. for the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order in view of the observation as given in the impugned order that the school admission register filed by the petitioner has not been found to be believable and convincing and the date of birth mentioning therein without any basis in absence of any school leaving certificate or the documents of matriculation certificate indicating age of petitioner as 10.04.2002. It has further been pointed out that the concerned clerk of the school has been examined as a witnesses and he failed to reply with respect to the date of birth i.e. 10.04.2002 as mentioned in the admission register and nowhere it is stated from which school he has been transferred and admitted in the said R.P. Patel High School in class VI and therefore his age indicated in the admission register as 10.04.2002 is not convincing and therefore this criminal revision application is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit and there is no error in the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned court below. 5. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 5. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that during the course of the enquiry conducted by the learned court below the Student Admission Register was brought on record i.e. Annexure-8 of the main petition. From the perusal of the Annexure-8 it is found that in the school admission register the date of admission of the petitioner is 10.04.2013 in class VI and his date of birth categorically indicated as 10.04.2002. It is an admitted document and its genuineness and correctness has not been disputed at all. It is further found that this document i.e. the school admission register has been duly proved by the authenticated person of the School R.P. Patel High School, Jugsalai. From the perusal of the deposition of the school clerk it appears that he was enquiry witness no. 1 Khirod Chandra Mandal who has been duly authorized by the said school vide a letter to that effect (Ext.1) issued by the Principal and the students admission register has been marked as Ext. 2 which is duly proved as per the provision of evidence law by the school and therefore there is no doubt about the date of birth written in the student admission register i.e. 10.04.2002 of the petitioner who has taken the admission on 10.04.2013 in class VI. There is no valid reason assigned by the learned court below while rejecting the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid school admission register which has been duly proved by the school authority nor the learned court below has expressed any doubt about the genuineness and correctness of the school Admission Register and therefore the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 passed in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2020 arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No. 97 of 2019 is wholly misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid down in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750 where under the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as- 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid down in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750 where under the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as- 32. Age determination inquiry contemplated under section 7A of the Act r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court need obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above mentioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year. 33. Once the court, following the above mentioned procedures, passes an order; that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in sub-rule (5) or Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to sub-rule (3) of the Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the Juvenility on its determination. 34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat may not be correct. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat may not be correct. But Court, Juvenile Justice Board or a Committee functioning under the J.J. Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination. 35. We have come across several cases in which trial courts have examined a large number of witnesses on either side including the conduct of ossification test and calling for odontology report, even in cases, where matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth certificate from the school last or first attended, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat are made available. We have also come across cases where even the courts in the large number of cases express doubts over certificates produced and carry on detailed probe which is totally unwarranted. 43. We are of the view that admission register in the school in which the candidate first attended is a relevant piece of evidence of the date of birth. The reasoning that the parents could have entered a wrong date of birth in the admission register hence not a correct date of birth is equal to thinking that parents would do so in anticipation that child would commit a crime in future and, in that situation, they could successfully raise a claim of juvenility. 7. In view of the aforesaid ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is found in the present case that genuine and convincing documents is the School Admission Register which is an admitted fact and in that register the date of birth is categorically mentioned as 10.04.2002 where the petitioner has taken admission in class VI on 10.04.2013 which is deemed to be his first attended school in absence of any contrary evidence or fact. 8. 8. Therefore the learned court below has committed error in not accepting the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.04.2002 and hence the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 passed by ld. Court below is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed and the impugned 08.03.2022 Passed in S.T. Case No. 71 of 2020 arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No.97 of 2019 registered under Section-395 I.P.C. is set aside with a direction to the learned court below to take into account the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the said School Admission Register as 10.04.2002 and proceed accordingly as per the provisions of law.