Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: s.7A – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – R.12(3)(b) – Plea of Juvenility – Appellant alleged that she was subjected to gang rape by the first respondent and other persons – FIR was registered on 24 July 2015, three to four months after the commission of offences – Plea of Juvenility – JMFC found that the matriculation certificate produced by the first respondent was fabricated and therefore directed FIR to be filed against first respondent for intentionally using fabricated documents in judicial proceedings – Sessions Judge while conducting inquiry sought the opinion of the District Medical Board and based on the same concluded that the first respondent was not a juvenile on the date of the incident – The first respondent filed revision petition before High Court which was accepted – On appeal, held :During enquiry the mother of the first respondent stated that the first respondent had not studied beyond Class 9 and therefore did not appear for matriculation examinations – The matriculation certificate was found to be forged by the JMFC and in the absence of a matriculation certificate, it was the birth certificate from the school first attended which could have been relied upon – Director of school and also relative of first respondent admitted that no document regarding date of birth of the first accused was filed at the stage of admission – The mother of the first respondent admitted in the crossexamination that the date of birth in the scholar register is wrong – In view of these circumstances, Sessions Judge was right in doubting the credibility of birth certificate obtained from school – The birth certificate issued by the Municipal Authority was not relied on by Sessions Judge as the documents were improperly maintained by the staff and were also found to be tampered – There is no valid basis to discard the finding – It is evident from the report of the medical board that first respondent was not a juvenile – The record relied upon by the first respondent in support of the plea of juvenility was fabricated – High Court erred in accepting the plea of juvenility – Penal Code,1860 – ss. 193, 465, 466, 468, 471,363, 366A, 376, 506,120B – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 – ss.3, 4.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. Rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules provides that for the purposes of the ‘age determination enquiry’ of a child or juvenile, evidence may be obtained by relying upon the following documents: (i) matriculation or equivalent certificates; (ii) date of birth certificate from school first attended; or (iii) birth certificate given by corporation or municipal authority or panchayat. At the end of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) the rule uses the expression “and in the absence whereof”. In the absence of any of the above three documents, medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board. [Para 19][430-C-D]
2. The mother of the first respondent categorically stated during the course of the enquiry that the first respondent had not studied beyond Class 9, and therefore did not appear for his matriculation examinations. The first respondent’s counsel submitted a matriculation certificate at the remand stage which was found to be forged by the JMFC after inquiry. This was specifically adverted to in the report of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge. In the absence of a matriculation certificate, it was the birth certificate from the school first attended which could have been relied upon.The ‘scholar register’ produced by the school mentions the date of birth of the first respondent as 30 June 1999. During the course of cross-examination, PW-4, who is the Director of Guardian and Guide Public School, admitted that no document regarding date of birth of the first accused was filed at the stage of admission.The mother of the first respondent has also admitted in the cross-examination that the date of birth in the scholar register is wrong. Additionally, the occupation of the first respondent’s father was initially mentioned as teacher, which was later corrected to service. However, the mother of first respondent has admitted during cross-examination that her husband was neither a teacher, nor did he do any service. It was also admitted that PW-4 is a relative of the first respondent. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge was right in doubting the credibility of birth certificate obtained from school. [Para 25 & 26][432-G-H; 433-B-E]
3. In terms of the order dated 18 April 2022 in these proceedings, a five-member committee was constituted by Municipal Corporation, Satna to search out the birth certificate of the first respondent. After due scrutiny, it has been found that there is no entry of registration bearing entry no. 1545 pertaining to the date 18 April 2002 and the last entry is entry no 1544. Hence, it is apparent that the documents placed before the High Court by the first respondent in support of his claim of juvenility are fabricated and manipulated. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the High Court was in error in relying on a fabricated birth certificate issued by the municipal authority to determine the juvenility of the first respondent. [Para 28 & 30][433-G-H; 434-A-B]
Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750 : [2012] 10 SCR 540; Abuzar
Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 : [2012] 9 SCR 244; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 12 SCC 370 : [2019] 9 SCR 735 – relied on.
Parag Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC
744 : [2016] 2 SCR 1089; Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1079 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.