Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian – Smt. Rajni Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, (2016) 12 SCC 744

Citation	AIR 2016 SC 2418, (2016) 12 SCC 744
Date of Judgment	12th May 2016
Court	Supreme Court of India
Statutes	Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000
Appellant	Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian-Mother-Smt. Rajni Bhati
Respondent	State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Bench	A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ
Referred	Benefit attached to juvenile justice would be applied to only those where the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case under discussion, shri Rajpal Singh, the complainant, filed a report in Police Station stating that his son Satender, who was living in Greater Noida with his family, had been discovered dead in his home. An FIR was filed at P.S. Kasana, Dist. Gautambudh Nagar under sections 302, 394, 504 and 506 of the IPC based on the aforementioned complaint. The appellant was taken into custody during the course of the investigation in relation to the alleged offence. After appearing before the juvenile court, he was placed under detention and placed in a juvenile home. 

The accused’s father submitted an application to the Juvenile Justice Board, claiming juvenility through the presentation of multiple school certificates. The juvenile was submitted to the medical board to determine the accused’s age after the board, having reviewed the material in the file, concluded that the school credentials given were dubious. The chief medical officer estimated the accused’s age to be around 19 years old. The juvenile board sent the case to the chief judicial magistrate in Gautambudh Nagar after ruling that the appellant was a major based on the medical board’s view.

Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed a criminal appeal and opted to appeal to the district and session judges. The appeal was rejected by the learned sessions Judge. Before the Allahabad High Court, the aggrieved appellant requested a revision. The revision was rejected by the Allahabad High Court’s learned single judge. The appellant, who is upset with the ruling, has requested special permission to file this appeal with the court.

ISSUES

In the Supreme Court of India, the issue raised was:

• Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is doubtful, the ossification test can be the last resort to prove the juvenility of the accused?

ARGUMENTS

By Appellant,

Dr. V.P. Appan, an experienced senior attorney for the appellant argued, 

That the appellant attended the Saint Joseph School, Greater Noida for standard 1st to 5th and attended Kisan Vaidik Junior High School for standard 6th and 7th. However, the Date of Birth is wrongly mentioned in the certificates an affidavit for the correction of same had been filed with the competent authority. 

The process of determining the age is to be followed with The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 7-A, which was not obeyed. 

The certificate given by the Controller of Examinations for the Secondary School Examination ought to have been considered by the lower courts. The appellant’s Date of Birth is clearly 13-9-1995, as shown by the two school’s are undoubtful certificates, the board committed grave illegality in directing the ossification.

He cited this court’s ruling in Rajendra Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh, which concluded that a hyper technical approach should not be used to determine the age of the accuse.

He also cited this Court’s ruling in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was decided that sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 12 are particularly significant because they stipulate that, upon the determination that the age of a juvenile or child in conflict with the law is less than 18 years on the date of the offence, based on any proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court, the Board, or, in the case of the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Chapter IV of the Act, must issue a written order specifying the juvenile’s age or status. At that point, the court is not required to undertake any further investigations. Board upon examination and acquisition of any further documented evidence mentioned in Rule 12’s subrule (3). Therefore, when a claim of juvenility is made, Rule 12 specifies the process to be followed in order to give effect to the provisions of Section 7-A. 

Additionally, reference was made to Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P.

The learned Senior Counsel made the following submission, citing a ruling from this Court in Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra: “The medical opinion can be sought only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii). In no other case may it be sought.”

By Respondent,

The State’s Senior Counsel, Shri R. Dash, stated that the date of birth listed on the secondary school examination certificate dates 13.09.1995, is incorrect. The accused’s father testified before the board that his son attended Saint Joseph School in Greater Noida for Standard 1st to Standard 5th. The accused’s father signed the school form dated September 13, 1996, which mentions the accused’s date of birth. After that, he attended Kisan Vaidik Junior High School in Latifpur, where his birth date of September 17, 1994, was listed. The accused re-enrolled in class 8 at Saint Joseph School after leaving this one. 

According to a report from the Saint Joseph School that was presented to the board, the accused’s date of birth was entered into the register using the transfer certificate that Kisan Vaidik Junior High School had given them. However, during an examination by the board, a representative of the Kisan Vaidik Junior High School testified under oath that the appellant never attended the institution and that the purported certificate was not granted by the administration. It was determined that the transfer certificate, which served as the basis for enrollment to Saint Joseph School, was not authentic. As a result, the birth date shown on the secondary school certificate was likewise completely fictitious.

In support of his claim learned senior counsel cited the court ruling of Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & anr., where it was held that the accused must not be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting to prove himself as a minor when the court is very sensitive in dealing with the juvenile who is involved in cases of serious nature.

He further cited the decision of Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain vs State of west Bengal wherein a bench of three judge had summarized the position for determining the juvenile as an accused. 

He further stated that in view of the documents produced by the father of the accused and the statement given by the concerned school, the date of birth of the accused is insubstantial.

JUDGEMENT

The court determined that any documentation supporting the claim of juvenility that is provided in accordance with Rule 12(3)(a)(i) through (iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 must be regarded as conclusive evidence of the accused’s date of birth. However, if there is uncertainty and the accused is presenting contradicting evidence, the court may decide to commission an investigation to ascertain the accused’s age. A medical checkup could be part of this investigation.

REFERENCES

https://www.mshrc.gov.in/pdf/internship/winterprogram/Report%20PDFs.pdf

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85936912/

This Article is written by Vaishnavi Kumari of New Law College, Bharatiya Vidyapeeth, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.