The Supreme Court has observed that Court cannot treat an accused as juvenile based on unreliable or dubious documents.
The Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner so as to attain status of juvenile in a case.
Brief Facts of the Case
The present appeal has been filed assailing an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge declaring the present appellant as juvenile in conflict with law was set aside and the appellant was ordered to stand trial as an adult.
The appellant was arrayed as an accused in respect of an occurrence on 18.01.2011. It was alleged that he waylaid a car and snatched ₹22 lacs from the occupants of the car. Out of the two occupants, one lost his life due to bullets fired and another filed the complaint.
In his plea of juvenility filed during pendency of trial, he relied upon his school record disclosing his date of birth as 13.05.1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the plea and declared him to be juvenile. In challenge to the said order before the High Court by way of a revision petition, the matter was remitted back to the trial court for adjudicating afresh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after remand, found the appellant to be 16 years 8 months and 5 days old on the date of incident as per the Ossification Test report. The age of the appellant as assessed by the Board of Doctors in the report was 23-24 years. The High Court however while setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the family register to hold that the appellant’s plea of juvenility cannot be allowed.
High Court Observations
The Court at the outset mentioned the relevant law under which the procedure to be followed for determination of age is provided. Putting out Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the Court remarked that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 stands repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The procedure for determining the age is now part of Section 94 of 2015 Act which was earlier provided under abovementioned Rule 12 of the Rules.
The Court went onto discuss the admitted position under the aforesaid and noted that there is no matriculation or equivalent certificate as contemplated. It noted that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge gave the benefit of variation in birth certificate and report Exhibit AW1/A rendered by the Board of Doctors on the basis of Ossification Test, thereby determining the age as 22 years. As the appellant was found entitled to additional benefit of one year in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules, he was held to be juvenile in conflict with law.
Examining the Documents placed for consideration of plea and documents relied on by the State, the Court made the below commentory.
1. Birth Certificate
The Court stated that document is forged to claim benefit under the 2000 Act as there as date of birth was registered on 19.11.2014 after the filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act on 7.10.2014.
"As per the birth certificate, the appellant was born at house. Therefore, in terms of Section 8(1)(a) and 10(1)(i) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 19695, birth had to be reported to the Registrar by the head of the household or by the nearest relative of the head present in the house or by the oldest adult male person present. In case birth is reported within 30 days, it shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. There are other conditions for registration of birth after 30 days as well."
2. School Leaving Certificate
Stating that the admission form, is a loose sheet prepared in his handwriting, the same does not bear any counter signature of any higher authority. He has not even produced any proof of registration of the school with the Education Department, the Court added to conclude that it is unreliable.
"The so-called admission form was filled up by him in 1999, so was the school leaving certificate of the year 2003. A perusal of the school leaving certificate shows that it was issued on 29.9.14 by Principal of Adarsh Siksha Sadan, Village Kheri, Dudadhari, though the school had shifted to Village Pinna in the year 2009-2010. It is unclear and amusing as to how a certificate be issued by a particular school which has been shifted to another village. This makes the process of issuance of certificate doubtful."
On the hand, the Court showed its conviction towards the document submitted by State stating non-existence of the school, the appellant claimed to have studied from at the point of time he cited.
3. Ossification Test Report
The Report was relied on by the Additional Sessions Judge to allow the plea to juvenility. However the Court opined that ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case.
Noting that the Medical Jurisprudence cannot be be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India for ossification test, the Court resisted in showing full confidence in the result of the said report.
The Court thus cited Jyoti Prakash Rai @ Jyoti Prakash Vs. State of Bihar, 2008 Latest Caselaw 229 SC wherein it was held that the medical report determining the age of a person has never been considered by courts of law as also by the medical scientist to be conclusive in nature. It was also found that though the Act is a beneficial legislation but principles of beneficial legislation are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of the statute and not for arriving at a conclusion as to whether a person is juvenile or not.
It also refrred to the decision in Mukarrab Etc. Vs. State of U.P. , 2016 Latest Caselaw 861 SC wherein it was observed that a blind and mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by the radiological examination. It was also held that the purpose of 2000 Act is not to give shelter to the accused of grave and heinous offences and decision was formed after placing reliance on Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, 2012 Latest Caselaw 584 SC
Ruling in Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR., 2008 Latest Caselaw 848 SC was also considered wherein it was held that neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person.
Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam verdict wherein it was held that X-Ray Ossification Test may provide a surer basis for determining the age of an individual than the opinion of a medical expert but it can by no means be so infallible and accurate test so as to indicate the exact date of birth of the person concerned.
"It is pertinent to note here that Dr. Rajeev Chauhan, Member of the Medical Board in his cross-examination admitted that a man with the age of 30 to 32 years would also find the same fusion as found in a man who has crossed the age of 22 years. Keeping in view the said statement, we find that the conclusion of the Medical Board that the appellant was 23 to 24 years cannot be said to be conclusive or helpful to determine the age of the appellant to be less than 18 years on the date of commission of offence."
4. Family Register
The Court commented that the High Court has relied on such certificate to hold that the appellant is not juvenile while observing that such document cannot be excluded from consideration for the reason as such document has been prepared in the ordinary course of business of the Gram Panchayat.
The Rules for which has been formed under Section 110 of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and a perusal of the Rules shows that one page is allotted to each family and that any change in the family consequent upon the births and deaths is required to be incorporated on such page. The changes are also required to be laid before the next meeting of Gram Panchayat. Thus, it is evident that such Rules are statutorily framed in pursuance of an Act, the Court stated.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had contended that the family register cannot be made basis of determining the age of the juvenile under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and cited Hare Ram Chowdhary v. State of U.P., Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 Latest Caselaw 668 SC
The Court analysed all the judgements cited in regard to the relevance in present case and nolted that Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. It contemplates that a register maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such register is kept would be a relevant fact. It cited Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P, 2006 Latest Caselaw 314 SC
It concluded that the Counsel's submission cannot be accepted as such Rules are not irrelevant as argued him.
"This family register does not only contain date of birth but also keeps the records of any additions in the family, though the evidentiary value needs to be examined in each case. 36. We are unable to approve the broad view taken by the High Court in some of the cases that Family Register is not relevant to determine age of the family members. It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the correct enunciation of law. The register is being maintained in accordance with the rules framed under a statute. The entries made in the regular course of the affairs of the Panchayat would thus be relevant but the 15 extent of such reliance would be in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case."
The Court opined that in terms of Rule 12(3)(iii) of the Rules, birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility.
"The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. Even Section 94(2)(ii) of the 2015 Act contemplates a birth certificate issued by a panchayat to determine the age."
Conclusion
The Court came to the conclusion:
"The appellant sought to rely upon juvenility only on the basis of school leaving record in his application filed under Section 7A of the 2000 Act. Such school record is not reliable and seems to be procured only to support the plea of juvenility. The appellant has not referred to date of birth certificate in his application as it was obtained subsequently. Needless to say, the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. As also held in Babloo Pasi, the provisions of the statute are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement."
In view of the above, it held that the appellant has approached the Court with unclean hands as the documents relied upon by him are not genuine and trustworthy and therefore he cannot be given benefit of juvenility. Affirming the High Court order, the Court dismissed the appeal.
"The view taken by the High Court is a possible view in law and does not call for any interference in the present appeal."
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments