Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 September, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182691
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3773 of 2023
Revisionist :- Juvenile X (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionifactsst :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.4.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2023 as well as order dated 07.01.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in case crime No. 140 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Jani, District Meerut, by which the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court was rejected the claim for juvenility.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the claim of juvenility of the revisionist was rejected by the learned J.J. Board by passing the order dated 7.1.2023 without considering the material on record which was related to his education even the learned appellate court did also not consider the material on record but passed the order dated 18.4.2023 which cannot be said to be based on fact and law. Further submitted that without relying on the date of birth as was mentioned in the academic record, the medical examination was ordered by the learned J.J. Board and on the basis of age as determined by the medical board, the claim of juvenility was decided by the learned Board as well as learned appellate court. It is also submitted that even the learned appellate court did not record any finding that the academic record was not reliable. In this way, the orders passed by the learned Board as well as learned appellate court cannot be said to be lawful and it cannot sustain in the eyes of law, therefore, request to set aside the orders passed by learned J.J.Board and learned Appellate Court and to declare the revisionist as juvenile and to allow the revision.
4. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that in this case, the date of birth of the revisionist as recorded in academic record was not accepted by the learned Board as well as learned appellate court because it was not reliable as there was no any record to show the date of birth of the revisionist in first attending school but it was stated by the teachers, those were examined as A.W.-2 and A.W.-3 that he was admitted in Class 4th on the basis of an affidavit filed by the father of the revisionist in which the date of birth was shown as 17.5.2006 and thereafter further education was given to him. The education from Class 4th was imparted in F.D.S. Madarsha Islamiya, Civil Khas, Meerut. The head master of the aforesaid school stated before the learned Board as A.W. 3 that the admission of the revisionist was taken on the basis of an affidavit given by the father of the revisionist in which the date of birth was shown as 17.5.2006. Subsequent, academic record of other school also recorded the same date of birth but there was nothing in support of date of birth of the revisionist as recorded i.e. 17.5.2006. In such situation the learned Board as per Section 94 of the Act, directed the age of the revisionist to be determined by the medical board in which he was found major and on that basis the claim of juvenility was decided by the learned court below. The finding regarding academic record and medical report was also recorded by the learned appellate court while passing the order in question. In this way, the orders passed by learned J.J. Board as well as learned appellate court cannot be said to be unlawful and beyond facts of the case but this revision is liable to be dismissed as having no force.
5. Section 94 of the Act contains the provisions relating to the determination of the age of the child said to be juvenile. It is as under:-
Section 94 of the Act provides that:
(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining --
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.
6. From the language used in Section 94 (2) (iii), it is clear that in absence of (i) and (ii), the age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or Board. Thus where birth certificates are available as indicated in sub-section (i) and (ii), the medical age determination test cannot be preferred.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and orders passed by learned J.J. Board as well as learned Appellate Court, it appears that there was no any record regarding first attending school of the revisionist but his admission was taken in class 3rd in F.D.S. Madarsha Islamiya, Civil Khas, Meerut. The date of birth was recorded on the basis of an affidavit filed by the father of the revisionist and he was admitted in class 4th. In this way the date of birth, recorded on the basis of affidavit cannot be said to be authentic as a result the document showing the same date of birth can also not be said to be reliable. In such a situation of the facts, the learned Board directed the determination of age of the revisionist by the medical board in which his radiological age was determined and on the basis of which the claim of juvenility of the revisionist was decided and his claim was rejected.
8. Thus, in my considered view, the orders passed by learned Board and the learned appellate court do not suffer any illegality, therefore, no interference is required at all but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.9.2023
A. Singh
