Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: s.7A – Prosecution case was that son of the complainant was murdered after a demand for ransom – Second respondent was arrested during the course of investigation – Claim for juvenility under 2000 Act – Basis was matriculation certificate issued by CBSE – When matter travelled upto Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the claim of juvenility was rejected – JJB also observed that while obtaining a driving license and an Aadhaar card, second respondent had declared his date of birth as 17.12.1995 and on that basis he was not juvenile on the date of incident – On revision, High Court allowed the claim of juvenility on the ground that matriculation certificate issued by CBSE would have to be given precedence over any other evidence of the date of birth by virtue of r.12(3)(a) – Appeal by complainant – Held: Cl. (a) of r.12(3) provides that for the purpose of seeking evidence in the enquiry, the documents that have to be obtained are matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available; and in its absence date of birth certificate from the school first attended; and in its absence, birth certificate given by a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat – Thus, cl. (a) of r.12(3) contains a hierarchical ordering, evident from the use of the language “in the absence whereof” – This indicates that a matriculation or equivalent certificate is given precedence – In the instant case, the date of birth which was forwarded in the roll of students of the school where the second respondent was a student from Class V to Class X was the sole basis of date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate – The said date of birth was without any underlying document, as stated by the Principal in the course of the enquiry before the JJB and, therefore, cannot be accepted as authentic or credible – The date of birth in the school first attended by second respondent and the transfer certificate of that school contained the date of birth as 17.12.1995 which matched with the the date of birth which was voluntarily disclosed by the second respondent while obtaining Aadhar card and also driving licence – Once it is held that the date of birth of the second respondent is 17.12.1995, he is not entitled to the claim of juvenility as on the date of the alleged incident which took place on 18.08.2015 – The order passed by the Sessions Judge, confirming the decision of the JJB rejecting the claim of juvenility is accordingly maintained – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12(3).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 7A of the Act of 2000 provides the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before a court. Upon a claim being raised that an accused was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, the Court is required to make an enquiry, take evidence and to determine the age of the person. The court has to record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child, stating the age as nearly as may be. Rule 12(3) of the Rules of 2007 contains a procedural provision governing the determination of age by the Court or by the Board. Clause (a) of Rule 12(3) provides that for the purpose of seeking evidence in the enquiry, the following documents would have to be obtained: matriculation or equivalent certificate if available; in the absence of (i), the date of birth certificate from the school first attended; and in the absence; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. Clause (a) of Rule 12(3) contains a hierarchical ordering, evident from the use of the language “in the absence whereof”. The matriculation certificate is given precedence. It is in the absence of a matriculation certificate that the date of birth certificate of the school first attended, can be relied upon. It is in the absence of both the matriculation and the birth certificates of the first school attended that a birth certificate issued by the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat could be obtained. [Para 10] [743-A, F; 744-F-H; 745-A-B]
2. The deposition of the school Headmaster indicated that the second respondent was admitted to Secondary School, Shikohabad in the fifth standard and was a student of the school until he completed his matriculation. The second respondent attended the first school until the fourth standard. The school register and transfer certificate form of that school specifically contained an entry in regard to the date of birth of the second respondent as 17 December 1995. The date of birth which was recorded in the certificate of the first school completely matched the date of birth which was voluntarily disclosed by the second respondent both while obtaining his driving licence as well as the Aadhaar card. In both those documents, the date of birth was reflected as 17 December 1995. The driving license and the Aadhaar card are not stand alone documents. The date of birth in the records of school where the second respondent was a student from Class V to Class X was without any underlying document, as stated by the Principal in the course of the enquiry before the JJB. On the other hand, there was a clear and unimpeachable evidence in the form of the date of birth which was recorded in the records of first school attended which is supported by the voluntary disclosure made by the second respondent while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and the driving licence. The High Court reversed the findings of the Sessions Judge purely on the basis of the matriculation certificate. The date of birth as reflected therein cannot be accepted as authentic or credible. Once it is held that the date of birth of the second respondent is 17 December 1995, he is not entitled to the claim of juvenility as of the date of the alleged incident which took place on 18 August 2015. [Paras 14, 15] [751-G-H; 752-A-H]
Prag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC
744 : [2016] 2 SCR 1089 ; Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam (2001) 5 SCC 714 : [2001] 3 SCR 669 ; Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750 : [2012] 10 SCR 540 ;
Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 : [2012] 9 SCR 244
– 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.