Jharkhand High Court
Md Aslam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2015
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 720 of 2014
Md. Aslam, son of late Dukhan
resident of village & P.O. Jatama,
P.S, Mahagama
Dist. Godda .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah For the State : APP
----------
3/Dated: 24/03/2015 This criminal revision application has been preferred against the order dated 15.5.2014 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in S.T. No.135/2011 in connection with Mahagama P.S.Case No.39 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.256/2011 whereby the prayer for declaring the petitioner as juvenile was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2007 prescribes the procedure for determining the age of the juvenile in terms of the enquiry to be conducted under Section 7 (A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is contended that as per 12 (3)a (i) the Committee or the Board is first required to obtain the evidence of the matriculation or equivalent certificates, and in the absence whereof the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended in absence whereof the birth certificate of the Corporation, Municipality or the Panchayat. That Rule 12 (3)b stipulates that in absence of the above the medical opinion should be sought from duly constituted Medical Board. It is argued that since the court below doubted the genunity of the date of birth due to over writing in the Admission Register of the Middle 2 School, then in such a situation the court below should have got the petitioner examined by the Medical Board for determining the age of the petitioner. In support of the argument reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Vs. The State of Jharkhand ; 2010 (1) JLJR206; Nayan Mandal Vs. The State of Jharkhand ; 2010 (1)JLJR 620.
It is argued that the impugned order is fit to be set aside and matter be remitted to the court below for determining the age of the petitioner by the Medical Board.
3. Per contra, learned APP has contended that the petitioner has himself stated his age as 23 years and the court has assessed the age as 24 years while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
4. Having heard the counsels and on going through the impugned order it is evident that the trial court has disbelieved the date of birth as mentioned in Admission Register and held that "it is a creative document and cannot be relied upon". The court below has also observed that the petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has disclosed his age is 23 years. The court has assessed his age as 25 years. Apparently the contents of F.I.R has been considered wherein the age of the wife (since deceased) of petitioner has been mentioned as 23 to 24 years. Moreover Rule 12(2) stipulates the determination of age as per the physical appearance. The trial court has assessed the age on the basis of physical appearance and the petitioner has also admitted that he is aged 23 years as noticed above. In the given facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety meriting any interference by this Court.
5. In the result the revision stands dismissed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Fahim/