Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hajrat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 863 of 2011
(HAJRAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-05-2022
Shri Ramji Singroul, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 17827 of 2021, an application for taking documents
on record supported by an affidavit of Firoz brother of the appellant Hajrat
Khan.
Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that at the time of
commission of offence, appellant -Hazrat was a juvenile but the issue of his
juvenility could not be raised before the Trial Court. He further submitted that
appellant was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence and this issue is
being raised for the very first time before this Court. In support of his plea that
at the time of commission of offence appellant Hazrat was a juvenile, original
copy of his primary mark sheet and birth certificate issued on 25.2.2011 by Sub
Registrar has been filed and it has been prayed that aforesaid documents be
taken on record.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent/ State has opposed the application and has submitted that
appellant's application I.A. No.6881/2018 in this regard has already been
dismissed. Therefore, now documents furnished by the appellant cannot be
taken on record.
Signature Not Verified
SAN We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2022.05.12 11:22:56 IST On a perusal of the verification report dated 06.03.2022 furnished by
SHO Surkhi, District Sagar it is revealed that, police was asked to verify the
genuineness of the documents. Police Surkhi, District Sagar after verification
of the documents has submitted report dated 06.03.2022. Appellant Hazrat
along with other co-accused has been convicted for commission of offence
under Section 148, 307/149 and 302/149 of IPC and has been sentenced to
under go life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation by
Seventh ASJ (Fast Track Court), Sagar.
Issue of juvenility of appellant Hazrat was not raised before the learned
trial Court. An application was filed before the trial Court after delivery of
judgment i.e. on 28.02.2011 and it was contended that at time of commission of
offence appellant Hajrat Khan was a Juvenile. That application was dismissed
by the concerned ASJ, Sagar as it had already delivered the judgement on
27.10.2010 and had became functus officio, so it dismissed the application.
Thereafter for the very first time, issue of juvenility was raised before this Court
by filing I.A. No. 6881 of 2018. I.A. No. 11407 of 2021 was again filed for
deciding the issue of juvenility of the appellant. As two applications were
pending on the same point, I.A. No. 6881/2018 was dismissed as not pressed
on 30.07.2021.
The claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and has to be
determined at any stage even after final disposal of the case and such claim is
required to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ
Act:"). Appellant has raised the issue of juvenility and in support thereof has
filed the certificate of Primary School Examination, 1999 and birth certificate
Signature Not Verified
SAN
issued on 26.02.2011 by registrar. Aforesaid documents are material documents
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2022.05.12 11:22:56 IST
for determining the claim of juvenility.
Therefore, after due consideration, I.A. No. 17827 of 2021 is allowed
and documents filed by the appellant is taken on record.
Heard on I.A. No. 11407 of 2021 an application for deciding the issue
of juvenilty of appellant Hajrat Khan.
Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that appellant in Sessions
Trial No. 454 of 2006 (State of M.P. through P.S. Surkhi District Sagar Vs.
Hari Singh & Ors.) vide judgment dated 27.10.2010 has been convicted for
offence punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302/149 of IPC by 7th Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sagar and has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. Learned
counsel further submitted that alleged offence was committed on 16.06.2005.
The date of birth of the appellant Hajrat Khan is 15.10.1987 his primary mark-
sheet is Annexure A-1. At the time of commission of offence, appellant was a
child within the meaning of Section 2(12) of J.J. Act, as he had not completed
the age of 18 years. An enquiry is contemplated under the provisions of J.J.
Act. Therefore, it has been prayed that enquiry as contemplated under Section
7(A) or 14 of the J.J. Act be conducted either by this Court or by learned trial
Court or by J.J. Board.
On the other hand learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State has contended that first application of the appellant has
already been dismissed and at this belated stage appellant cannot be allowed to
raise the issue of juvenilty. Therefore, he has prayed that application filed by the
appellant be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
In this case, alleged offence was committed on 16.06.2005 at 07:30 p.m..
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
The issue of age was not raised before the learned trial Court. It was raised
Date: 2022.05.12 11:22:56 IST
before the learned trial Court after four months of delivery of the judgment, as
the trial Court had become functuous officio it dismissed the application.
It is a settled position of law that issue of juvenilty can be raised at any
stage, even after final disposal of the case and the Courts are required to
determine such claim in terms of the provisions contained in the J.J. Act. The
provisions of J.J.Act are beneficial in nature and are required to be followed
strictly in favour of the juvenile, therefore, we are of the view that it would be
useful to refer certain relevant provisions of J.J. Act, 2000 which read as under:
"œ2. Definitions.***
(k) "œjuvenile" or "œchild" means a
person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;
(l) "œjuvenile in conflict with law" means a
juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence
and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the
date of commission of such offence;
7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility
is raised before any court "ÂÂ"(1) Whenever a claim of
juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the
opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence, the court shall make
an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but
not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such
person, and shall record a finding whether the person is
a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as
may be:
Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before
any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even
after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be
determined in terms of the provisions contained in this
Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile
Signature Not Verified
SAN
has ceased to be so on or before the date of
commencement of this Act.
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2022.05.12 11:22:56 IST
(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1),
it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing
appropriate order, and the sentence if any, passed by a
court shall be deemed to have no effect."
Section 7 (A) clearly held that it was the authority of the Court to record
the finding that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before it and if in the
opinion of Court, accused person was juvenile on the date of commission of
the offence the Court is required to make an enquiry and to take such evidence
as may be necessary so as to determine the age of such person, and shall
record a finding whether the person is a juvenile/child or not, stating his age as
nearly as may be. The exercise which has to be carried out by the court has to
be exercised in a mechanical manner without their being any objective
assessment and subjective satisfaction.
The purpose of the juvenile Act is to ensure that children who come in
conflict with law are to be dealt with separately and not like adults, even if the
child commits a heinous crime, he cannot treated like an adult.
On the basis of above discussion, it is manifestly clear that Section 7(A)
of the J.J. Act, 2000, give the right to any accused to raise the question of
juvenility at any point of time and if such an issue is raised, the Court is under
obligation to make an enquiry and deal with that claim.
Matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar only on
the point of examining the question of juvenility of the appellant. Learned trial
Court shall conduct age determination enquiry contemplated under Section 7(A)
of the Act read with relevant Rules. In the event learned trial Court comes to a
finding that the appellant was minor at the time of commission of offence or
Signature Not Verified
SAN
vice versa, it shall return its finding and shall forward the same to this Court for
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2022.05.12 11:22:56 IST
considering his case.
Learned trail Court shall make all attempts to complete the enquiry as
early as possible within a period of 04 months.
With the aforesaid direction, I.A. No. 11407/2021 is allowed.
List this case after receipt of the report from the learned Sessions Judge,
Sagar.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Amitabh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2022.05.12 11:22:56 IST
