Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94(2)(ii) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12(3) – U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 – Appellant-accused was declared as juvenile in conflict with law by Additional Sessions Judge – Order set aside by High Court, appellant ordered to stand trial as an adult – On appeal, held: Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner – To seek juvenility, if the reliance is on a document which is not reliable or is dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation – The provisions of the statute are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement – Appellant approached the Court with unclean hands as the documents relied upon by him are not genuine and trustworthy, and thus cannot be given benefit of juvenility – View taken by High Court is a possible view in law and does not call for any interference.
Juvenile Justice – Determination of Juvenility – Ossification Test – Held: Ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case – It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India.
Juvenile Justice – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – s.110 – U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12(3) – Family register – Evidentiary value of – Held: How much evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register is a question of fact, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the correct enunciation of law – The register is maintained in accordance with the rules framed under a statute – Entries made in the regular course of the affairs of the Panchayat would thus be relevant but the extent of such reliance would be in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case – Further, in terms of r.12(3)(iii) of the Rules, birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility – Family register is not a birth certificate – Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of r.12(3) – Even s.94(2)(ii) of the 2015 Act contemplates a birth certificate issued by a panchayat to determine the age.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 stands repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The procedure for determining the age is now part of Section 94 of 2015 Act which was earlier provided under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (the Rules). The appellant relies upon three documents such as a Birth Certificate; School leaving Certificate and the Report of the Ossification Test in support of his plea of being a juvenile, whereas the State relies upon the family register prescribed by the Family Register Rules. [Paras 5 and 6][287-F-H; 288-A-B]
2. In the birth certificate issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the date of birth is mentioned as 13.05.1993. Such date of birth was registered on 19.11.2014 after the filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act on 7.10.2014. Such date of birth certificate has been arranged to claim benefit under the 2000 Act. The date of birth certificate produced by the appellant cannot be relied upon as it was obtained after filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act on 7.10.2014. As per the birth certificate, the appellant was born at house. Therefore, in terms of Section 8(1)(a) and 10(1)(i) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, birth had to be reported to the Registrar by the head of the household or by the nearest relative of the head present in the house or by the oldest adult male person present. In case birth is reported within 30 days, it shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. There are other conditions for registration of birth after 30 days as well. Therefore, the Courts have rightly not relied upon date of birth certificate which was granted on 19.11.2014 as it was obtained after filing of the application and registered many years after the birth and not immediately or within the prescribed time period. [Paras 8-10][288-D-G; 289-F-G]
3. The school leaving certificate (Ex. A-3) has been proved by examining Umesh Kumar, Head Teacher of Adarsh Siksha Sadan, Pinna. As per the statement of the witness, the school was functioning in the year 1999 in Village Kheri, Dudadhari and was shifted to Village Pinna in the year 2009-2010 where he had been working as Head Teacher from the year 2000. As per the certificate, the appellant was a student of such school from 12.7.1999 till 2.7.2003. In cross-examination, he admits that the school is a private school and the father of the appellant has not produced any certificate of the appellant attending the first class. The appellant was admitted directly in the 2nd standard. He admits that Exhibit A-1, the admission form, is a loose sheet prepared in his handwriting and it does not bear any counter signature of any higher authority. He has not even produced any proof of registration of the school with the Education Department. The so-called admission form was filled up by him in 1999, so was the school leaving certificate of the year 2003. A perusal of the school leaving certificate shows that it was issued on 29.9.14 by Principal of Adarsh Siksha Sadan, Village Kheri, Dudadhari, though the school had shifted to Village Pinna in the year 2009-2010. It is unclear and amusing as to how a certificate be issued by a particular school which has been shifted to another village. This makes the process of issuance of certificate doubtful. On the other hand, Ex R-1 is the certificate produced by the State stating that no school exists by the name of Adarsh Siksha Sadan in the village Kheri, Dudadhari. Such certificate has been issued by Kanishkvir Singh of Primary School, Kheri. The learned Additional Sessions Judge or the High Court have not relied upon such certificate. Such school leaving certificate is unreliable and that the certificate is only a procured document for proving juvenility before the court. [Paras 11-14][289-G-H; 290-A-F]
4.1 The Medical Board has opined the age of the appellant between 23 to 24 years, when the appellant was examined on 13.05.2016. Ossification Test Report has been relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge to allow the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant. Ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case. It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India. [Paras
15 and 16][290-F-G; 291-C]
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 26th Edition, pg. 221 – referred to.
4.2 Dr. Rajeev Chauhan, Member of the Medical Board in his cross-examination admitted that a man with the age of 30 to
32 years would also find the same fusion as found in a man who has crossed the age of 22 years. The conclusion of the Medical Board that the appellant was 23 to 24 years cannot be said to be conclusive or helpful to determine the age of the appellant to be less than 18 years on the date of commission of offence. [Para 22][294-C-E]
Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar (2008) 15 SCC 223 : [2008] 3 SCR 818; Mukarrab v. State of U.P. (2017)
2 SCC 210 : [2016] 8 SCR 557; Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 : [2012] 9 SCR 244; Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016)
12 SCC 744 : [2016] 2 SCR 1089; Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam (2001) 5 SCC 714 : [2001] 3 SCR
669 – relied on.
5.1 The Family Register Rules prescribes preparation of a Family Register in the State of Uttar Pradesh which contains family-wise names and particulars of all persons ordinarily residing in the village pertaining to the Gaon Sabha. Such Rules have been framed under Section 110 of the U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The High Court has relied on such certificate to hold that the appellant is not juvenile. A perusal of the Rules shows that one page is allotted to each family and that any change in the family consequent upon the births and deaths is required to be incorporated on such page. The changes are also required to be laid before the next meeting of Gram Panchayat. Thus, it is evident that such Rules are statutorily framed in pursuance of an Act. The entries in the register are required to be made by the officials of the Gram Panchayat as part of their official duty. Neeraj Kumar, Gram Panchayat Officer of Block Barwala was examined wherein he stated that the entries in the register are made on the basis of information given by the family members, though he could not depose as to who had made these entries. [Paras 23 and 24][294E-F; 296-B-D]
5.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the family register cannot be made basis of determining the age of the juvenile under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. It contemplates that a register maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such register is kept would be a relevant fact. Such Rules are not irrelevant as argued. This family register does not only contain date of birth but also keeps the records of any additions in the family, though the evidentiary value needs to be examined in each case. This Court is unable to approve the broad view taken by the High Court in some of the cases that Family Register is not relevant to determine age of the family members. It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the correct enunciation of law. The register is being maintained in accordance with the rules framed under a statute. The entries made in the regular course of the affairs of the Panchayat would thus be relevant but the extent of such reliance would be in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In terms of Rule 12(3)(iii) of the Rules, birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility. The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. Even Section 94(2)(ii) of the 2015 Act contemplates a birth certificate issued by a panchayat to determine the age. [Paras 26,
32 and 34-37][296-G; 298-A-B; 299-E-H; 300-A]
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC
584 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 615 – relied on.
Krishna Pal v. State of U.P 2010 SCC OnLine All 695; Shiv Patta v. State of U.P. 2013 SCC OnLine All 14202 – approved.
5.3 The appellant sought to rely upon juvenility only on the basis of school leaving record in his application filed under Section 7A of the 2000 Act. Such school record is not reliable and seems to be procured only to support the plea of juvenility. The appellant has not referred to date of birth certificate in his application as it was obtained subsequently. The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. The provisions of the statute are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement. The appellant has approached the Court with unclean hands as the documents relied upon by him are not genuine and trustworthy. Thus, the appellant cannot be given benefit of juvenility. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view in law and does not call for any interference in the present appeal. [Paras 38 and 39][300-B-E]
Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 133 : [2008] 14 SCR 161 – relied on.
Hare Ram Chowdhary v. State of U.P. 1989 SCC OnLine ALL 438; Anil Kumar v. Suchita. 2009 SCC OnLine ALL 671; Bahadur v. State of U.P. 2009 SCC OnLine ALL 1757; Abdul Hakeem Pardhan and Others v. State of U.P 2015 SCC OnLine ALL 5201; Ram Murti Devi v. State of U.P. and Others 2021 SCC OnLine ALL 260; Pramod Kumar Manglik v. Smt. Sadhana Rani 1989 SCC OnLine ALL 125 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.