Delhi High Court
Pradeep @ Piddi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 February, 2019
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 587/2018 & CRL.M.A. 12589/2018
PRADEEP @ PIDDI ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. G. C. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Govind Puri, PS Uttam Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 19.03.2018, whereby the Trial Court
has rejected the application of the petitioner claiming juvenility.
2. The Trial Court noticed that there was no record of the school
available and accordingly ossification test was conducted. The Medical
Board opined the age of the petitioner as between 20-22 years.
3. Noticing the record of the Medical Board the Trial Court rejected the
application raising the claim of juvenility and held the petitioner to be
major i.e. 18 years of age on the date of alleged commission of offence.
4. Subject offence was alleged to have been committed on 05.04.2016.
The ossification test was conducted on 27.05.2016.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that the records have been
obtained from the school first attended, which show the date of birth of the
petitioner as 07.02.1997, on which the age of the petitioner could be
determined as above 18 years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner per contra submits that since the
record of the school is not based on any foundational documents, the same
cannot be relied on, as the date of birth was recorded merely on the basis of
an affidavit.
7. The school record shows the age of petitioner to be more than 18
years on the date of the offence. Even if one were to ignore the record of
the school, then as no other document prescribed under the Juvenile Justice
(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is available, one would have to
resort to the ossification test.
8. Rule 12(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007 reads as under:-
"(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
the 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."
9. The documents, which could be taken as evidence for determining
the age in the order of their preference are (i) the matriculation or
equivalent certificates and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth
certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in
the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat.
10. Sub Rule (b) further prescribes that in the absence of either of the
above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted medical
board, which would declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact
assessment of age cannot be done, the Committee for reasons to be
recorded may give benefit to the child by construing his age on lower side
within the margin of one year.
11. In the present case, the ossification test which was held on
27.05.2016, opined the age of the petitioner as 20-22 years applying Rule
12(3)(b) and giving benefit of one year to the petitioner, the age on the date
of the test would be taken on the lower side would be 19 years i.e. (20-1).
12. Subject offence was alleged to have been committed on 05.04.2016
and the test was conducted on 27.05.2016 i.e. after 1 ½ months of the
offence. Even if this period of 1 ½ months is ignored, the petitioner would
still be above 18 years of age on the date of the offence.
13. In view of the above I find no infirmity in the view taken by the
Trial Court in assessing the petitioner as a major i.e. above 18 years of age
on the date of alleged commission of the offence. Accordingly, there is no
merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.
14. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 21, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Pallavi
