The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of the order wherein the petitioner, claiming to be a minor on the day of the commission of the crime was declared as a major based on the assessment of the Medical Board and held that benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year and Rule-12 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 has to be followed in determination of age and juvenility of a person or a child in conflict with the law had to be decided prima facie based on physical appearance, or document, if available.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in connection with a case filed against the petitioner under Section 3(a) and Section 4 of the POSCO Act whereby he was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of his age based on estimation and another order passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the petitioner was declared as a major based on the assessment of the age by the Medical Board.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for ascertaining the age of the petitioner, an enquiry was held under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 in which the examination of witnesses show that the petitioner was only 16 years old on the day of occurrence and the same was also supported by the admission register of the school. It was further argued that the trial court erred in not appreciating Rule-12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, in its right perspective, and particularly sub-Rule (3) of the same and relied on the judgment in Ram Sanjiwan Versus State of U.P in support of the same.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state argued that the school in which the petitioner took admission was a private and not a government school and there was no authenticity of the admission register of the same. It was further contended that there was some manipulation in the documents presented to get the benefit of the law as a juvenile to save himself from punishment. The counsel relied on the judgment in Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian-Mother-Rajni Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr to argue that in the cases, where the documents were found to be forged, fabricated and manipulated, the Court, Juvenile Justice Board or Committee need to go for medical report for medical determination.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that in absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of Clause-(a) of Rule 3(b) of the Rule-12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the medical opinion is to be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of juvenile or child and the court referred to the judgment in XYZ Versus Abhishik & Anr. in support of the same.
The court further observed that Rule-12 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 has to be followed in determining of age and juvenility of a person or a child in conflict with the law had to be decided prima facie based on physical appearance, or document, if available and enquiry into the determination of age by the Juvenile Justice Board by seeking required evidence.
It was further stated that benefits could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on the lower side within the margin of one year and if a juvenile in conflict with the law is found to be below 18 years, then an order has to pass declaring the status of the juvenility by the court.
It was observed that the petitioner in the present case was not within the marginality of 18 years as his age was assessed as 21-22 years and the trial court followed the right procedure for determining his age given the disputed document brought by the petitioner before the same.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order as there was no illegality in the same.
Case Title: Wasim Ansari vs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 471 of 2015
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. B.M Tripathi, Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma and Mr. N.K Jaiswal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shreenu Garapati
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
