Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas @ Vikky vs State Of M.P. on 24 July, 2015
(Vikas alias Vikky Vs. State of M.P.) 1 Cr.R. No. 626/2013
24/07/2015
Shri B.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri
Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No. 1/State.
Shri R.K. Soni, Advocate for the complainant- Padma Verma.
Heard.
This revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (For brevity hereinafter called as "Act, 2000") by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 22.07.2013 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Criminal Appeal No. 82/2010, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 7(A)(2) read with Section 20 of the Act, 2000 has been rejected.
Brief facts just necessary for adjudication of this revision are that, on the report of one Padma Verma, crime was registered on 05.09.2005 at Police Station Shadhora District Ashoknagar against accused Pankaj Verma and others including the petitioner. It is alleged that the complainant-Padma Verma was married to (Vikas alias Vikky Vs. State of M.P.) 2 Cr.R. No. 626/2013 accused Pankaj Verma on 22.03.2003. The complainant was harassed for demand of dowry. She went to her maternal home on 07.08.2004 and since then she has been living with her parents. After informing the accused, he refused to take the complainant to her matrimonial if his demand of dowry is not met.
In the criminal case, other accused persons including the petitioner were convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/-. Appeal was preferred against this judgment. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner claimed himself to be a "juvenile" and sought relief. Learned Appellate Court kept this application pending for decision at the final disposal of the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred petition (M.Cr.C. No. 4426/2013) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court. vide order dated 13.06.2013 directed to the learned lower Appellate Court to enquire about the age of the petitioner. After enquiry, the learned lower Appellate Court passed the impugned order on 22.07.2013 and held that the petitioner was 18 years, 1 month on the (Vikas alias Vikky Vs. State of M.P.) 3 Cr.R. No. 626/2013 date of offence (i.e., 05.09.2005). Therefore, he was not "juvenile" on the date of offence under the Act, 2000.
The petitioner claimed that the complainant Padma was married to Pankaj Verma on 22.03.2003, however, alleged to have left her matrimonial home on 07.08.2004 and started living at her parental home Shahdora. As such the date of offence at the most can be reckoned from 07.08.2004 and not later than that. However, the learned lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the offence was committed on 05.09.2005 on which the FIR was actually lodged. Computing the age of the petitioner from 07.08.2004, it was held that he was not "juvenile conflict with law" on 05.09.2005, whereas in any stretch of imagination, the date of offence cannot be reckoned from 05.09.2005, because the complainant left for her matrimonial home on 07.08.2004, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
On behalf of the State, application is strongly opposed stating that the petitioner, at the time of determination of age before the learned lower Appellate Court, has admitted that his date of birth is (Vikas alias Vikky Vs. State of M.P.) 4 Cr.R. No. 626/2013 14.08.1986 as per his 10th and 12th Board mark-sheets. He further admitted that he has passed MA degree examination. However, he suppressed production of these documents. He cleverly filed document issued by the Municipal Corporation, which is a birth certificate, in which his date of birth is shown as 14.08.1987, which is not correct. Neither this birth certificate has been cogently proved nor it can be deemed to be proved. For the reason that the certificate has been issued on 19.08.2010 much after the incident and much after the order of this Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the document issued by the Municipal Corporation has not been properly proved, more so, the petitioner's actual date of birth is 14.08.1986 which he has admitted. The petitioner deliberately did not filed the mark-sheets of 10th and 12th Board examination but has filed a document which was issued on 19.08.2010. Evidentiary value of this document is very weak. For determining the age of the juvenile in conflict with law under Section 7(A), the mark-sheet of 10th and 12 Board examination of the petitioner could have been (Vikas alias Vikky Vs. State of M.P.) 5 Cr.R. No. 626/2013 reliable, cogent and appropriate document, which was withheld by the petitioner.
In this circumstances, the finding by the learned Appellate Court at Para 22 is quite relevant stating that the exact date of birth of the petitioner is 14.08.1986. The petitioner was not below 18 years on the date of incident.
Per Contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of incident, i.e., 07.08.2004. Learned trial Court erred in holding that the incident took place on 05.09.2005 is not proper. As on that day, only FIR was lodged but the incident cannot be held after 07.08.2004, from which date the complainant has left his matrimonial home. That being so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Having gone through the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that the learned 1 st Appellate Court erred in passing the order dated 22.07.2013 in holding that the date of incident is 05.09.2005. At the same time, it is also to be noted that birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation on 19.08.2010 has been taken into account, whereas properly and cogent (Vikas alias Vikky Vs. State of M.P.) 6 Cr.R. No. 626/2013 documents were available for ascertaining the age of the juvenile conflict with law.
In this circumstance, it would be appropriate to remand the case to the lower Appellate Court (2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar) for disposal according to law. Setting aside the order impugned passed in Appeal No. 82/2010, lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties regarding the age of the petitioner on the date of offence (i.e., 07.08.2004) within a period of 60 days from the date receiving the certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision stands disposed of.
(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi