| Headnote |
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Claim of juvenility – Determination of age – Matriculation Certificate – Respondent no.2-accused along with others was alleged to have attacked the appellant and his family causing death of his father and uncle – Application filed by respondent no.2, through his mother/natural guardian before the Juvenile Justice Board for declaring the respondent no.2 as a juvenile delinquent – Appellant sought medical test of respondent no.2 to ascertain his true age, application dismissed – Respondent no.2 was declared a juvenile delinquent – Appellant’s appeal before District and Sessions Judge was dismissed – Criminal Revision before the High Court was also rejected – On appeal, held: Respondent no.2’s date of birth as recorded in the school admission records, as well as the matriculation certificate are the same i.e., 25.09.2004 – Date of the incident was 05.05.2020 – The mark-sheet pertaining to the matriculation of respondent no.2, issued by the concerned Board, gives rise to a presumption that he was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident – Moreover, the letter dtd. 22.07.20 of the Administrative Officer, Regional Office, Intermediate Education Council, UP, (Meerut) also authenticated the date of birth of respondent no.2 as 25.09.2004 – No contra evidence to the documents produced by respondent no.2 have been produced by the appellant – Order of the High Court sustaining the judgement of the District & Sessions Court as well as of the JJ Board, not differed from – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.35 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147-149, 323, 307, 302, 34. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.35 – Application filed for declaration that respondent no.2 was a juvenile delinquent was supported with Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet of the High School issued by the concerned Board stating that the date of birth of respondent no.2 was 25.09.2004 – Admission forms were relied upon to prove that the respondent’s date of birth mentioned in the said documents are in consonance with the date of birth indicated in the matriculation certificate – Plea of appellant that the genuineness of the said documents was in grave doubt and thus could not have been relied upon in support of claim of juvenility – Held: In the instant case, admittedly, there is no other document indicating the date of birth of the respondent no.2 contrary to what has been indicated in the matriculation certificate – There is no discrepancy in the date of birth. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Determination of age – Evidence – School records – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.35 – Held: When the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per s.35 inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents – Any document in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per s.35 and other provisions. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.94, 9(2), (3) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – ss.7A, 49 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Determination of age – Difference in the procedure – Discussed. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Claim of juvenility – Held: A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after final disposal of the case – A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim – It can also be raised for the first time before Supreme Court – A hyper-technical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile – If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.9, 94 – Determination of juvenility – Held: When the issue of juvenility arises before a Court, it would be u/sub-section (2) and (3) of s.9 but when a person is brought before a Committee or JJ Board, s.94 applies – Further, if the JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence – Age recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of the 2015 Act, be deemed to be true age of that person – Hence, the degree of proof required in such a proceeding before the JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial is before the concerned criminal court, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of the offence is pending. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Presumption of juvenility – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Held: When a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden – However, the documents mentioned in r.12(3)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii), 2007 Rules or sub-section (2) of s.94, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court – On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised – However, said presumption is not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and may be rebutted by contra evidence. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Absence of documents mentioned in s.94(2), determination of age – Held: Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination – A mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination – Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in s.94(2). |
