Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The relevant facts are as below:

The accused Ranjeet was found involved in case crime no. 1962 of 2011 under section 302/34 IPC and is facing trial before the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act. During the course of proceedings, he moved an application with the submission that on the date of the incident, he was merely 17 years 4 months and 18 days of age, therefore his case may be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The court concerned passed an order on 26.08.2015 directing the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct a proceeding for determination of age. In the proceeding for determination of age, the accused produced copy of parivar register, wherein his date of birth was shown as 07.06.1994. On the request of the accused, Gram Panchayat Adhikari was summoned and examined as CW1. The witness testified that the name of the accused was mentioned at serial no. 27 of the parivar register and that his date of birth was mentioned as 07.06.1994. He further testified that his date of birth was entered in the parivar register on the basis of an affidavit. The accused moved another application dated 18.09.2015 before the Board with a prayer that his age may be determined by getting him medically examined by a Medical Board at District Hospital, Mainpuri. The Board constituted for the purpose gave an opinion that the accused was 30 years of age. The Juvenile Justice Board did not find the entries in the parivar register worth reliance and held him above 18 years on the date of the incident on the basis of medical opinion. This finding given by the Juvenile Justice Board was challenged before the appellate court. The appellate court considered the provisions of law as contained in sections 49 and 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and also the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The appellate court also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P.; (2012) 9 SCC 750, and ultimately dismissed the appeal holding that the J.J. Board adopted the correct procedure for determination of age and that no interference is required and dismissed the appeal.

4. The contentions of the revisionist are that the evidence of parivar register showing his date of birth as 07.06.1994 was wrongly discarded; where such paper is available, medical age cannot be considered. Secondly, his two younger brothers Rahul and Manjeet, who were also named, were declared juvenile. The younger brother was found aged 16 years and 3 months on the date of the incident, hence there appears no logic that the revisionist i.e. the elder brother could be aged 26 years. Further that when his mother gave the statement before the J.J. Board, she was 38 years and this is one more reason that he cannot be 26 years by any calculation. It is not possible that a 38 years old mother may have a 26 years old son.

10. In the instant case a few important things have been stressed by the State, first, parivar register is not a certificate which is envisaged anywhere in rule 12(3)(a)(i) to iii. Further that the revisionist/juvenile never said that he didn't attend any school or never had any formal education, hence non-production of any school record must be viewed with suspicion. Further more that admittedly, entry in parivar register has been made on the basis of an affidavit. Any explanation as regard the circumstances showing when and what prompted this move of filing affidavit for entry in parivar register is missing.

11. From the submissions of both the sides and perusal of material on record, it is clear that no paper like matriculation or equivalent certificate or date of birth certificate from a school first attended or birth certificate given by a corporation or municipal authority or a Panchayat could be produced by the revisionist before the J.J. Board or before the appellate court. Undoubtedly, the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 gives precedence to the aforesaid papers in that very order as above. In absence of any such paper, the Board had no option but to depend upon medical opinion. The dependence on parivar register is out of place in the scheme of things as envisaged by Rule 12. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the parivar register is a document which could be and should have been relied upon by the J.J. Board, this fact cannot be ignored that the entry in parivar register was made on the basis of a simple affidavit. In such circumstances, the Board rightly did not place reliance on such entry. The J.J. Board or the Court concerned cannot rely on entries in any document unless they appear to be prima facie correct. Definitely, the J.J. Board or the court concerned is expected to apply its judicial mind and not to rely on paper in a mechanical manner, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the matter.