Juvenile revision challenging appellate order remanding age determination for lack of documentary continuity. High Court affirmed appellate court's rejection of one-sided finding, dismissing the revision.
Criminal Revision No. 1827 of 2022 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1827 of 2022 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
Kasganj from where she passed class 6th and 8th were produced to prove that her date of birth was 20.06.2003. The papers included a mark-sheet from High School, a T.C. from that very school and third paper T.C. issued by R.S.S. Memorial Public School which was issued on her passing class 8th supposedly on the basis whereof admission was taken in the subsequent school. It is also revealed from the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board that certain papers from the side of the informant were also produced which showed that she took admission in Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhogipur, Gangiri, Aligarh and took education from class 1 to 5th. The papers which have been produced by the informant included the copy of admission form, copy of T.C., copy of S.R. Register and to prove those papers the Principal of that school Sandeep Kumar was examined. The date of birth in the school papers produced by the informant's side was mentioned as 20.06.2000. The Juvenile Justice Board found that at the time of admission in class 1, no birth certificate or Aadhar Card was produced and the admission form did not bear signature of her parents.
did not took her primary education in the aforesaid school, the evidence could have been given to show that she studied in some other school. The revisionist side instead decided to keep mum. If some very material information/evidence is withheld by a party, adverse presumption can be drawn. While conducting an enquiry the Court is not expected to fall in a trap laid down by a party and draw inference in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
“ 29. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:
(vi) That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case.
(ix) That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents.
(x) Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions.
(xi) Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.”
Order Date :- 2.12.2022 AKT
Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.07 10:13:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate court's decision to remand the age determination enquiry due to discrepancies in school records.
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board's finding of juvenility despite gaps in educational documentation was sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meghraj Sharma Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Meghraj Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 2021 (116) ACC 802
Risipal Solanki Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶14
Risipal Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (11) ADJ 489
State of U.P.
Another
Jyotsna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
