Allahabad High Court
Shakeel vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 August, 2016
Bench: Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2506 of 2013
Revisionist :- Shakeel
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Zafar Abbas,Jameel Ahmad Azmi,R.A.Khan,R.K.Mishra,Ravindra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Raghvendra Prakash
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Raghuvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.06, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2013 (Shanti Devi v. State of U.P.), whereby the order dated 1.7.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in Application No.31 of 2013, case crime no.236 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (d), 392, 411 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist-Shakeel was declared juvenile by order dated 1.7.2013 of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh.
The findings of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2013 (Shanti Devi v. State of U.P.), which was set aside by order dated 11.9.2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.06, Azamgarh and the accused revisionist was declared above the age of 18 years and as an adult on the date of occurrence.
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.
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."
It is admitted fact that no educational records were produced to determine the age of the revisionist- Shakeel before the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh and thereafter he was produced before the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh for age determination of the revisionist. The Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh in his examination report of age dated 27.5.2013, has opined that the accused revisionist-Shakeel was about 19 years of age on the date of examination. The F.I.R. was lodged on 17.3.2013 mentioning therein the incident of the same day.
Thus, according to priority mentioned in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, in absence of the educational certificates and the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat, the Medical Board is only authorized to declare the age of the juvenile or child.
So, it is evident that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.06, Azamgarh. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly, dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 9.8.2016
S.Sharma
