Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev vs Anul Singh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 711 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
RAJEEV S/O RAMGOPAL KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 20
Y E A R S , VIVEKANAND COLONY CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(NONE )
AND
1. ANUL SINGH S/O SATYENDRA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, CHOUBEY COLONY
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND
SHRI J.S.PARIHAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
T h is revision coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
No one has appeared for the applicant, therefore, only learned
counsel for the respondents are heard.
This revision is pending since 2006, therefore, it would be just and
proper to decide it on merits.
This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 read
section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2000") against the appeal
judgment dated 24.03.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.28/2006 (Rajeev Vs. Anul Singh and
ano.) whereby it has affirmed the order dated 15.02.2006 passed in
Criminal Case No.292/2005 whereby learned Juvenile Justice Board came
to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence respondent No.1
was below 18 of age, therefore, JJB is competent to hear the matter.
2. This revision has been filed only on the ground that as per
evidence of Dr.R.P.Gupta, the age of respondent No.1 in ossification test
has been found to be above 20-21 years of age while as per the school
certificate his date of birth is 13.06.1988. Therefore, findings recorded by
the J.J.B and appellate court that on the date of commission of offence his
age was 17 years and 03 months unjust. Hence, same be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that when
educational certificate regarding age is available then other repors like
ossification test which is supposed to be very weak type of evidence,
cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, learned JJB as well as
appellate court have not committed any error in holding that at the time of
commission of offence respondent No.1 being below 18 years of age was
juvenile.
4. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that in educational
certificate the date of birth of respondent No.1 is mentioned as
13.06.1988. The incident took place between the period from 20-
29/09/2005. As per section 2(k) of the J.J.Act, 2000 a person who is
below 18 years of age is child. As, as per educational certificate, on the
date of commission of offence, respondent No.1 was below 18 years of
age, it is apparent that learned J.J.B as well as learned appellate court has
not committed any error in holding that at the time of commission of
offence, respondent No.1 was below 18 years of age. As far as the report
of ossification test is concerned, it is settled position of law that when birth
certificate or educational certificate with regard to age are available then
Board is not required to accept ossification test report. In the case in hand
the age mentioned in the educational certificate is available. Therefore, I
am of the view that learned J.J.B as well as learned appellate court has not
committed any error in holding that on the date of commission of offence
respondent No.1 was below 18 years of age and as such he was within the
definition of child.
5. In view of above, no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety is
found in the impugned order. Consequently, this revision being devoid of
merits, is dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
