Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – r.12 – Procedure to be followed in determination of Age – FIR was filed against Respondent No.2 and his father u/ss.452 and 302, IPC – Respondent No.2 pleaded juvenility – Trial Court declared the Respondent No.2 to be a ‘juvenile’ on the date of the incident – Challenged by appellant – Order upheld by High Court – Interference with:
Held: r.12(3)(a) lays down the sequential list of certificates to be examined and the order thereof – In the present case, as no ‘matriculation or equivalent certificates’ were available u/r.12(3) (a)(i), thus u/r.12(3)(a)(ii), ‘date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended’ was attracted and the certificate issued by the first attended school was taken as conclusive proof of date of birth – However, the deposition of the School’s Headmaster to the effect that the birth-date was noted on an oral representation by Respondent No.2’s father, makes the said certificate unreliable – Other school certificates were issued following this and therefore, are not correct, in the face of conflicting public records and public documents as also the Medical Report which state to the contrary – Thus, the certificate issued by the first attended school could not have been taken as conclusive proof of date of birth of Respondent No.2, discarding Form (A) u/r.2 of the Rules under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947; the entry in the Voters’ List for the Legislative Assembly of the year 2012, and; the Medical Report – Respondent No.2 was not a ‘juvenile’ on the date of the incident – Declaration of Respondent No.2 as a ‘juvenile’ was improper – Impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Trial Court holding the Respondent No.2 to be a ‘juvenile’, set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.35, 74. [Paras 23-26] Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.35, 74 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Certificate issued by the first attended school was taken as conclusive proof of date of birth of the Respondent No.2-accused and he was held a ‘juvenile’ on the date of the incident:
Held: The first attended school is not a Government School and thus, the records maintained by the said School would not be ‘public documents’ – Moreover, the Headmaster/Principal of such School cannot be said to be a ‘public servant’ for the purposes of the Evidence Act – Thus, neither the Headmaster/Principal of the first attended school nor its records would qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’ respectively. [Paras 21, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.