Archana Kumari vs State Of Bihar And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1280 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL REVISION No.611 of 2018
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2014 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
     ======================================================

Archana Kumari Wife of Ranjan Kumar, Daughter of Kamta Singh, Resident of Village Pakariya, P.S.- Mufasil, District- Nawadah, at present Dariyapur, P.S. Rajauli, District- Nawadah.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Ranjan Kumar, Son of Rambalak Singh, Resident of Village Pakariya, P.S. Mufashil, District- Nawadah.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s      :     Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh
                                     Mr. Kumar Lalit
     For the State             :     Mr. Sri Anil Kumar Singh 1
     For the O.P. No. 2        :     Mr. Deepak Kumar

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-03-2021

This revision application has been filed against the

judgment and order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal

No. 62 of 2016 (arising out of Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No.

67 of 2014, G.R. No. 1570 of 2014, Trial No. 476 of 2016) by

1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Children

Court, Nawada) whereby and whereunder the learned Court

below has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner

against the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the learned

Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, in

Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 67 of 2014, G.R. No. 1570 of

2014, Trial No. 476 of 2016 by which the opposite party No. 2 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

was declared Juvenile.

2. Brief fact of the case is that writ petitioner was

married with opposite party No. 2 on 09.06.2014 and, thereafter,

she was assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home

snatching her ornaments and a demand of rupees five lac was

made. A written information was given to Nawada Muffasil

police station and on the basis of said information, Nawada

Muffasil P.S. Case No. 67 of 2014 was lodged against the five

accused persons including opposite party No. 2. (Ranjan

Kumar). It further appears from the record that opposite party

No. 2 claimed to be minor and thereafter, the matter was

referred to Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada.

3. It appears that on 23.06.2016, opposite party No.

2 took the plea of juvenility before the Court of learned

S.D.J.M., Nawada, who split up the records and sent it to

Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, for enquiry on the point of

juvenility of opposite party No. 2. After hearing the parties and

calculating the date of birth as 02.02.1999, mentioned in

provisional certificate produced by opposite party No. 2 issued

by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, the Juvenile

Justice Board, Nawada, declared the opposite party No. 2 as

juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e., 09.06.2014. Aggrieved Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

by the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2016 passed by Juvenile

Justice Board, Nawada, the petitioner preferred an appeal

(Criminal Appeal No. 62/16) before the 1st Additional Sessions

Judge,-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Nawada and the

learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that

the court also do not find any illegality in the judgment of

Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms

of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015, only the office / institution/ persons which

has issued the aforesaid certificate can say as to whether the

document is genuine or not. In this case, it is submitted that

opposite party No. 2 has been declared juvenile only on the

basis of provisional certificate which was produced by the

opposite party No. 2.

5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner

that opposite party No. 2 has been declared juvenile on the

basis of provisional certificate which is not one of the

documents enumerated to be considered at the time of

determination of age in terms of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and in this

connection, he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

reported in [2017(3) East Cr. C 655 (Pat)] in the case of

Mukesh [email protected] Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. It is further

contended on behalf of the petitioner that without verifying the

genuineness and comparing it with the original records, opposite

party No. 2 has been declared juvenile straightway on the basis

of provisional certificate produced by opposite party No. 2. Law

requires that only the office/agency/institution/person can say as

to whether the document is genuine or not. In this context,

reliance has been placed upon the decision of this court reported

in 2020 (1) PLJR 91 passed in the case of Suresh Rai Vs. State

of Bihar.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed counter affidavit and

submitted that impugned order is a reasoned order and have

been passed on the basis of the provisional certificate issued by

Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. It is further submitted

that according to the provisional certificate issued by the Bihar

School Examination Board, the date of birth of the petitioner is

02.02.1999 and on the date of occurrence, he was only 15 years

4 months and 7 days and, thus, rightly declared juvenile by the

learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada. It is further submitted

in terms of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 that once, the same is

produced, there is no need to look for other documents as far as

determination of age of a juvenile is concerned. As such, the

impugned order is quite legal, reasonable and in accordance

with law.

7. It is useful to quote Section 94(2) of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which reads

as follows:-

"94. Title: Presumption and determination of age.-

(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 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board."

8. This clause provides that 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 the Act

that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall

record its observation stating the age of the child. Further, in

case, the Committee or Board has reasonable grounds for doubt

regarding the person brought before it is a child or not, the

Committee or Board shall take 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 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.

9. In this case, opposite party No. 2 has been

declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, simply

on the basis of provisional certificate issued by Bihar School Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

Examination Board. This Court finds that the contention of the

petitioner to be correct that the provisional certificate of the

Bihar School Examination Board is not one of the documents

which is required to be taken into consideration for

determination of age in terms of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The

impugned order also reveals that the Juvenile Justice Board,

Nawada, has acted upon the provisional certificate without

verifying the genuineness or comparing it with the original

documents. This court also finds that the appellate court without

going into these infirmities committed by the Juvenile Justice

Board, Nawada has affirmed the order dated 17.09.2016.

10. Thus, keeping in view the submissions made on

behalf of the parties and materials available on records, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated

17.09.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada and

the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Appellate Court are in

gross violation of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As such, the same cannot

be sustained and are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded

to the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada to conduct a fresh

enquiry after hearing all the parties strictly in terms with Patna High Court CR. REV. No.611 of 2018 dt.05-03-2021

Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015.

11. The present writ application is allowed in the

aforesaid terms.

12. However, it is made clear that this Court has

not expressed any opinion with regard to merit of the matter.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Saif/-

AFR/NAFR
Uploading Date          12.03.2021
Transmission Date       12.03.2021