Madhya Pradesh High Court
Clinton @ Lakhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1 Cr. A. No. 3377/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3377/2019
Clinton @ Lakhan
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Counsel for the appellant : Mr.Siddharth Datt,
Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent/State : Mr. Piyush Bhatnagar,
Advocate
Corum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sunita Yadav
******
JUDGMENT
(21-12-2021)
Per : Sunita Yadav, J.
Heard on IA No.430/2020, which is an application under Section
391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for taking additional documents
on record filed on behalf of the appellant-Clinton @ Lakhan stating
therein that as per the prosecution story the incident is said to have taken
place on 20/01/2018 and it is alleged that the accused/appellant
committed murder of Ritik Mehta.
2. The date of birth of the appellant as mentioned in the mark-sheets
is 10/04/2000. Copy of the mark-sheets of the appellant of Board of
Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal are annexed along with
the application.
3. From the record, it is evident that at the time of incident the
appellant was less than 18 years of age and, hence, on the date of
incident he was a juvenile.
4. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
prayer is made by learned counsel for the appellant to take additional
evidence on record regarding date of birth of the appellant.
5. Section 9 (2) and (3) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015, prescribes as
under:
"(2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims
before a Court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on
the date of commission of the offence, or if the Court itself is of the opinion
that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said
Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but
not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a
finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be:
Provided that such a claim may be raised before any Court and it
shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and
such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions
contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has
ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act.
(3) If the Court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a
child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to
the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by
the Court shall be deemed to have no effect".
6. Section 21 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015, prescribes as under:
"21. Order that may not be passed against a child in conflict with
law.- No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for
life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such
offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time
being in force".
7. In the case of Abuzar Hussain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of
West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489 the Apex Court has laid down that;
"39.1.....
39.2 for making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the
claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the Court
that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be
discharged by the person who claims juvenility".
8. In this case the appellant herein has filed the mark sheets of
S.B.S. Convent School, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya
Pradesh, Bhopal and High School Certificate Examination (10+2) 2015,
therefore, we are prima facie satisfied that an inquiry into the claim of
juvenility is necessary.
9. In this case the trial Court has recorded the age of the appellant as
19 years. The appellant is in custody since 23/01/2018. We are hereby
direct the Trial Court to examine the claim of the appellant herein
regarding juvenility in accordance with law, and submit a report to this
Court within a period of one month from the date of communication of
this order.
10. The concerned Sessions Court shall be entitled to examine the
authenticity and genuineness of the documents sought to be relied upon
by the appellant, considering that the documents do not appear to be
contemporaneous.
11. In the event the documents are found to be
questionable/unreliable, it will be open to the Sessions Court to have the
appellant medically examined by taking an ossification test or any other
modern recognized method of age determination.
12. On perusal of the record, it appears that the name of the appellant
is mentioned as "Kiltan" in his mark-sheets, however, in the record of
the trial Court as well as in appeal memo, appellant's name is spelled as
"Clinton @ Lakhan". Therefore, Trial Court is directed to ascertain the
fact regarding identity of the appellant.
Accordingly, IA No.430/2020 is allowed.
Office is directed to take the documents on record.
(Atul Sreedharan) (Sunita Yadav)
Judge Judge
Astha
ASTHA SEN
2021.12.22 10:46:36 +05'30'
