Jharkhand High Court
Bajrang Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2015
Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 JHARKHAND 95, 2016 (1) AJR 310 (2015) 3 JCR 533 (JHA), (2015) 3 JCR 533 (JHA)
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2015
------------
Bajrang Sahu @ Bajrang Kumar Sahu
Son of Late Bartu Sahu, resident of Village- Lowadih, P.O. & P.S.-
Namkum, District- Ranchi ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opp. Party
------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vikrant Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, A.P.P.
------------
C.A.V. ON: 27.04.2015 PRONOUNCED ON:- 06.05.2015
Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated
24.07.2013passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.685 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner to declare him juvenile and to transfer his case for inquiry and disposal to the Juvenile Justice Board, has been rejected.
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant Laxminia Devi recorded on 16.05.2012 is that on the said date at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening Hira Sahu, resident of the same village, intimated that the dead body of her son Bartu Sahu is floating in a well and after hearing the said news, she alongwith her family members went near the well and with the help of people, the dead body was taken out. The informant found several injuries on the face and head of her son caused by sharp cutting weapon. She suspects that after killing her son, the dead body was thrown into the well. It is also alleged that only few days before the said instance, the deceased was injured by his wife Roona Devi and her sons Bajrang Sahu (the petitioner) and Chhatu Sahu whereafter a complaint was lodged in Namkum police station on the allegation that her daughter-in-law and grandson wanted to take the property in their hands and their intention was also to sell the land and her daughter-in-law had some illicit relationship with another person.
3. It appears from the record that after lodging of the F.I.R., the police took up the investigation and after completion of the 2 Cr. Revision No.85 of 2015 investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On 18.10.2012, the petitioner filed an application raising plea of juvenility stating therein that as per his transfer certificate issued by school, his date of birth is 01.04.1997 and as such on the alleged date of occurrence he was below 18 years. It further appears from the record that earlier the bail application of this petitioner was rejected by the court of Sessions as also by the High Court on merit showing him as major as the question of juvenility was not raised at that time and only thereafter the petition was filed for declaring him to be a juvenile enclosing therewith transfer certificate issued by the school. The court below appears to have disbelieved the said certificate and dismissed the bail application taking into consideration the fact that application was made at a belated stage and that in his confessional statement the petitioner had disclosed his age to be 19 years. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred one Cr. Revision No. 254 of 2013 which was allowed with a direction to the court below to make inquiry regarding the juvenility of the petitioner in terms of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the order of the then Additional Judicial Commissioner- VI, Ranchi dated 02.02.2013 was set aside. It further appears from the record that by impugned order, the court below after making an inquiry under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also under Rule 12 of the Rules, rejected the prayer for declaring the petitioner as juvenile holding as follows:-
"from these documents, it is clear that petitioner was not first attendant in Nirmala Middle School in Class 1 rather he was first admitted in some other school and where he was studied in K.G. and, thereafter, he admitted in Nirmala Middle School in Class 1. Date of commission of occurrence on this case is 16.05.12 and Medical Board opined age of the petitioner on 3 Cr. Revision No.85 of 2015 10.06.13 as 22-23 years. In absence of any birth certificates as provided u/s 12(a) of the J.J. Act, the age of juvenile conflicts with law has to be determined on the basis of the medical opinion of the duly constituted Medical Board which shall declare the age of juvenile and the same shall be conclusive proof of age as regard the juvenile conflicts with law. The rule also provides that if considered necessary, the benefit is to be given to the child by considering his/her age in the lower side. The Medical Board has opined the age of the petitioner as 22- 23 years on 10.06.13. The Court considered the age of the petitioner as 22 years (lower side) on 10.06.13. The date of commission of alleged occurrence is 16.05.12. Therefore, in my view the age of the petitioner Bajrang Sahu is on the date of alleged occurrence more than 18 years.
In view of the discussion made herein above and considering the opinion of Medical Board and given benefit to the child as determining the age in the lower side, in my view the age of the petitioner is, hereby, declared as 22 years on 10.06.13. The date of alleged occurrence is 16.05.12. Thus, the age of Bajrang Sahu (Petitioner) on the date of alleged occurrence was more than 18 years."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned, seriously contended that the statute requires the Court or Board only to make „inquiry‟ and the manner, in which inquiry has to be conducted, is provided in the Rules 2007. Section 7(A) of the Act obliges the court only to make inquiry and not an investigation or a trial and even an inquiry not under the Code of Criminal Procedure but under the provisions of the Act and Rules. But in the present case, the court below has made an inquiry which is beyond the scope of J.J. Act and Rules. It was also submitted that even after examining certificates filed at the instance of the petitioner, the court below directed his matter to a Medical Board for determination of his age in clear violation of Rule 12(3)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and finally rejected the prayer. Lastly, it was submitted that the order impugned being contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the J.J. Act and Rules, is fit to be set aside and the petitioner be declared as juvenile.
5. Learned counsel representing the State contrary to the above submissions submitted that the court below has fully relied on mandates given under J.J. Act and Rules and even Ossification 4 Cr. Revision No.85 of 2015 test was conducted for determination of the age. Hence, there is no cogent ground to interfere in the order impugned.
6. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the counsels, I would like to discuss the evidences which the court below has considered in the impugned order. The petitioner had enclosed the School Leaving Certificate with the petition filed for declaring him juvenile and in support of that a teacher of A.S.S.I.S.I. High School was examined as inquiry witness no.1, who had testified that the petitioner was admitted in his school on 14.04.2009 in Class-VII and that time his date of birth was entered as 01.04.1997 in the Admission Register. The witness has further stated that Bajrang Sahu the petitioner before coming to his school was student of Nirmala Middle School, Samlong and after passing Class VI from that school, he was admitted in his school on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the said school. The said transfer certificate and the Admission Register of his school were proved and marked as Ext.1 and 2 respectively.
The Principal of Nirmala Middle School, Samlong, who had issued transfer certificate of this petitioner, was examined as inquiry witness no.2 and the Principal has testified that this petitioner was admitted in his school on 01.04.2003 in Class-1 and the entry in the Admission Register was made by him and the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned in the Admission Register as 01.04.1997 and the petitioner studied in his school till 2009 and on 02.04.2009 he took transfer certificate from his school which is Ext.3 and the Admission Register is Ext.4. The Principal of this school (witness no.2), during cross examination, has stated that the date of birth of the petitioner Bajrang Sahu was entered in the Admission Register on the basis of oral submission of his father and no birth certificate was produced by him. It appears that the court below in the impugned order has mentioned that in the Admission Register in the Column "name of the school from which the student comes"
is mentioned as Nimelabh V. and in the Column "Class in which he 5 Cr. Revision No.85 of 2015 was reading" is mentioned as K.G. Relying on those two entries, the court below came to the finding that the petitioner was not first admitted in Nirmala Middle School, Samlong rather he was admitted in some other school where he was studying in K.G. and since no certificate of that school has been produced before the court, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected.
7. The court below, in my view, has not properly understood the scope of the Act and the ingredients of Section 7(A) of the Act and Rule 12 of 2007 Rules. The statute only requires the Court or the Board to make an „inquiry‟ and take such evidence as may be necessary. In a case Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 while dealing with the same issue regarding the scope of Section 7(A) and Rule 12 of 2007 Rules in Paragraphs 34 and 35 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination.
35. We have come across several cases in which the trial courts have examined a large number of witnesses on either side including the conduct of ossification test and calling for odontology report, even in cases, where matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth certificate from the school last or first attended, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat are made available. We have also come across cases where even the courts in the large number of cases express doubts over certificates produced and carry on detailed probe which is totally unwarranted.6 Cr. Revision No.85 of 2015
8. On consideration of the above ratio decided in the case, I am constrained to hold that the Admission Register and the transfer certificate issued by the school in which date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.04.1997 is a relevant piece of evidence of the date of birth. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 43 of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. (supra) has further held as follows:-
"The reasoning that the parents could have entered a wrong date of birth in the admission register hence not a correct date of birth is equal to thinking that parents would do so in anticipation that child would commit a crime in future and, in that situation, they could successfully raise a claim of juvenility."
9. Merely, because a certificate of the school Nimelabh V. where the petitioner had studied in Class K.G. was not produced in court, the claim of the juvenility of the petitioner, in my opinion, will not fail. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the entire family had a criminal antecedent and it is beyond imagination that anticipating that the child would commit a crime in future the father of the petitioner had entered a wrong date of birth in the Admission Register of Nirmala Middle School, Samlong. In the year 2003 when the petitioner was admitted in Class-I he was nearly 6 years old. Apparently, as discussed above, I am of the view that on the date of occurrence that is on 16.05.2012, the petitioner was juvenile on the basis of the date of birth entered in Admission Register as 01.04.1997.
10. With the aforesaid findings, this revision application, is hereby, allowed and the order impugned dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.685 of 2012 is set aside.
(R.N. Verma, J.) Anit