Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2018
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
M.Cr.C.No.12981/2018
(Arun Meena Vs. State of M.P.)
1
5
Jabalpur, dated 12.7.2018
Shri Umesh Trivedi, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, G.A., for respondent.
This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.1500678/2016 by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the date of birth of applicant has been wrongly mentioned in the matriculation certificate, the matriculation certificate is doubtful and is not reliable. It is also submitted that the elder sister of applicant Ku.Laxmi is shown to be only about 4 months younger than the applicant. The date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate of petitioner is 20.6.1997, whereas the date of birth of his elder sister Ku.Laxmi in the matriculation certificate is 25.10.1997, which means that she is 4 months younger to the applicant. There cannot be a gap of only 4 months between two children from same parents. It is also submitted that the date of birth of his sister Sonam and his brother Vijay have also been wrongly mentioned in the school certificates. It is therefore submitted that this petition kindly be allowed and the impugned order may kindly be set aside and petitioner may kindly be sent to the Medical Board for determination of his age.
Learned counsel for State submits that the date of birth of applicant is 20.6.1997, the incident is reported to have taken place on 2.5.2016 and on the date of incident the applicant was aged 18 years and 9 months, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Court below.
The trial Court has taken into consideration the marksheet of petitioner issued by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi Ex.A-5 and on that basis has The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.12981/2018 (Arun Meena Vs. State of M.P.) 2 arrived at the conclusion that on the date of incident the petitioner Arun Meena was above the age of 18 years.
Section 49 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that, where it appears to a competent authority that a person brought before it is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age is nearly as may be. Rule 12(3)(a)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 provides that for determination of age of juvenile or child in conflict with law, the matriculation or equivalent certificate, birth certificate of school first attended or birth certificate given by the Corporation or Municipal authority or a Panachayat are most acceptable evidence. In absence of any such evidence, medical opinion is to be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of a person to be juvenile or child.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Parag Bhati Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2016 SC 2418), and contended that in the aforesaid case it has been held that if the date of birth as recorded in matriculation certificate and various school certificates seems to be doubtful, then it can seek medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board to determine the age of the accused person claiming juvenility.
The trial Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 263] held that if age of person whose juvenility is to be determined, is to be seen on the basis of his/her matriculation marksheet or certificate, or other school The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.12981/2018 (Arun Meena Vs. State of M.P.) 3 certificates, or birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation. In absence of these documentary proof, the enquiry regarding the age can be sought through medical opinion.
In the matter in hand, the matriculation certificate of recognized Board is on record, in which the date of birth of petitioner is shown. That is the most genuine evidence for determining the age of applicant. It has not been disputed anywhere that the certificate is false or has been procured by someone else with malafide intention. This certificate has been produced from the side of petitioner itself. So there is no iota of doubt about the genuineness of the document.
As far as the comparison of date of birth of petitioner with other members of his family is concerned, it does not have any relevance because the discrepency which has been shown in the revision application seems to have never been raised during the course of investigation. If petitioner is only 4 months elder to his real sister Ku.Laxmi, then on that ground it cannot be concluded that the date of birth of petitioner is wrong. The petitioner has submitted Aadhar card of his other family members, but he did not produce Aadhar card of himself, which might be relevant and admissible document regarding his date of birth.
It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of FIR a criminal case has been registered in Police Station Bagsevania, District Bhopal. On that basis Sessions Trial No.678/2016 is pending before the trial Court, in which the trial is going on. After framing of charge, most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined. In the meanwhile, on 9.11.2017 the petitioner has submitted application under section 49 of the Act, which has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 10.11.2017.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.12981/2018 (Arun Meena Vs. State of M.P.) 4 Considering the overall circumstances and documents on record, it appears that the trial Court has taken into consideration the marksheet of petitioner issued by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi Ex.A-5 and on that basis has arrived at the conclusion that on the date of incident the petitioner Arun Meena was above 18 years of age. The order passed by the trial Court appears to be just and proper and I do not find any error or illegality, so as to call for interference in this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
(MOHD. FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE Digitally signed by M. SANTOSH P MATHEWS Date: 2018.07.16 22:12:09 -07'00'