Allahabad High Court
Ram Nevaj vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 270 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ram Nevaj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
As per office report, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2. However, none has appeared on his behalf.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.29/2017, Ram Nevaj Maurya versus State of U.P. & another and the judgment and order dated 01.06.2017 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.789/2016, under Section 354(A) IV, 328, 392, 307, 302 I.P.C. Police Station-Piparpur, District-Amethi.
The opposite party no.2 moved an application on 03.01.2017 before the Court of C.J.M., Sultanpur, in which, it is stated that as per the documents, the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 is 20.05.2001 and, therefore, he may be declared juvenile. The revisionist-complainant had also appeared before the court. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Juvenile Board for determination of the age of opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as per the certificate of Primary School, Nagardeeh, the date of birth of opposite party no.2 is 20.05.2001 whereas the certificate of Chandrawati Model Public School indicates that age of the opposite party no.2 is 18.11.2002. It was further objected that after looking to certificates, it is clear that there is contradiction, which creates doubt about the age of opposite party no. 2. Therefore, the matter should be referred to Medical Board, which should be constituted for determination of the age of opposite party no. 2.
It has further been submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board summoned the Head Master of Primary School, Nagardeeh, who certified that as per his record, the date of birth of the opposite party no.2 is 20.05.2001. At the same time, the Head Master of Chandrawati Model Public School was also summoned, who certified that the date of birth of the opposite party no.2 is 18.11.2002. The matter was decided by the Juvenile Justice Board on 01.06.2017 and it was held that since the date of birth of opposite party no. 2 is 20.05.2001 as per the record of Primary School, Nagardeeh, therefore, his age is determined according to the aforesaid document. It was also held that at the time of the occurrence, the opposite party no.2 was aged about 15 years 6 months 27 days. Being aggrieved against the order dated 01.06.2017, appeal was filed by the revisionist, which was dismissed by the order dated 16.08.2017 and the finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parag Bhati(Juvenile) thru. Legal Guardian-Mother -Smt. Rajni Bhati versus State of Uttar Pradesh; AIR 2016 SC(Criminal) 807, in which, it has been held that if there is doubt regarding the date of birth and contradictory stand is being taken then the enquiry for determination of age should be done as per the medical opinion.
I have heard Sri Abhinav Singh,Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ravish Chandra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is admitted on record that there are two date of birth as per two certificates available. The date of birth recorded in Primary School, Nagardeeh is 20.05.2001 and at the same time, according to the certificate of the other school, Chandrawati Model Public School, date of birth is 18.11.2002. It is, thus, clear that there is some doubt about the age of opposite party no. 2 and it is best course that the matter should be sent to Medical Board to ascertain his age.
In view of above, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur for taking fresh decision for determination of the age of opposite party no.2 in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The said exercise will be done within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
In view of the aforesaid facts and legal issues, the order dated 16.08.2017 and 01.06.2017 are hereby set aside.
The revision, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
Akanksha
