Dismissed

Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022CRLR/480/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging the declaration of the accused as major, the High Court observed that the date of birth recorded at initial Class 1 admission was more credible than a later date given upon re-admission to the same class after a gap. The petition was dismissed, upholding the lower orders.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the revisionist was dismissed and the impugned orders upholding the declaration of the accused as major were confirmed.

Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Reserved on 01.11.2022 Delivered on 09.11.2022

¶2

Court No. - 91

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 480 of 2022 Revisionist :- Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Mishra,Parshu Ram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None responded on behalf of the respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.

¶6

This Criminal Revision has been filed by Sri Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma challenging the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra as well as challenging the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2021 under Sections 363, 302, 201 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 2020 whereby the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the revisionist as major on the date of occurrence was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

¶7

The facts relevant leading to this revision are that a FIR initially under Section 363 IPC, Case Crime No. 161 of 2020 was registered, which was converted into a criminal case under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC during investigation. Finding the accused below 18 years, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board. The age determination inquiry was conducted and the accused was declared a juvenile, aged 16 years 7 months and 14 days on the date of occurrence vide order dated 02.04.2021. The informant-Bakreedu preferred Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2021 challenging the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the same was allowed and the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to conduct the age determination inquiry afresh. Therefore, second inquiry was conducted and by order dated 10.08.2021, the accused was declared to be major. Against the aforesaid order of the Juvenile

¶8

Justice Board, a Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2021 was preferred by the accused, the same was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2021. Now, the accused has come before this Court in this revision against the orders, by which, he was declared major.

¶9

The main and foremost contention of the revisionist is that his date of birth, as recorded in High School Certificate issued by the U.P. Board, a paper, which was duly proved, has been ignored. Instead a different date of birth as revealed from the record of primary school has been taken into consideration, which is against the settled principles of law. It is contended that the date of birth, as shown in the High School Certificate, must be given precedence over the date of birth, as recorded in the transfer and conduct certificate, issued by the primary school and other records. It is further contended that the Juvenile Justice Board correctly relied on date of birth as 12.04.2004 mentioned in the High School Certificate in its earlier order dated 02.04.2021, however, when the matter was placed again before the Juvenile Justice Board in pursuance of remand order of appellate Court, the most important and dependable High School Certificate was not considered. Thus, settled position of law and the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in this regard, have been overlooked and the impugned orders, being defective in fact and in law, are liable to be set aside.

¶10

I perused the material on record. Admittedly, the revisionist was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board by its earlier order dated 02.04.2021, which was set aside by the appellate Court directing the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry afresh. It shall be pertinent to refer to the observations of the appellate Court in its order dated 01.07.2021. The appellate Court noticed the fact that the informant specifically alleged that the transfer and conduct certificate and the marksheet produced on behalf the juvenile were not genuine. It was further observed that in school records of the same institution, two different date of births were mentioned. On the basis of above and certain other facts, the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to conduct the inquiry afresh.

¶11

¶12

I went through the impugned order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order of the appellate Court. The Court noticed the fact that admittedly as per statement of Principal, Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jamwal, Chopan, Sonbhadra, the accused took admission in that institution in Class 1^st and his date of birth was recorded as 12.08.2002 on the date of admission i.e., 04.07.2008 (that is approximately 6 years at the time of admission in Class 1^st ). He left that school in Class 3^rd , though he was declared successful on 01.07.2010. He took admission in the same class in the same institution again after a gap of 15 days only on 16.07.2012 and his date of birth was recorded as 12.04.2004, i.e., two years younger than what he was about 15 days ago. The Principal could not explain as to how and what basis a different date of birth was recorded when he was being given a new admission in Class 3^rd . There is nothing on record to explain the same. Taking into account, big discrepancy in recording two dates of birth within a gap of 15 days, the Juvenile Justice Board drew a presumption against the accused observing that his papers showing date of birth as 12.08.2002 were deliberately withheld by his side to give him a benefit of having declared him minor. It was also observed by the Juvenile Justice Board that the conduct of the then Office bearers/Principal of the school was not above suspicion.

¶13

I went through the order of the appellate Court. After evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence it concurred with the opinion of the Juvenile Justice Board. The appellate Court too referred to the statement of CW2- the Principal, Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jamwal, Chopan, Sonbhadra, in which, he clearly stated that the accused took admission in his institution on 04.07.2008 at serial no. 1202 in Class 1^st showing his date of birth as 12.08.2002, however, though he was declared successful on 01.07.2010 but he left the studies in Class 3^rd thereafter, he again took admission on 16.07.2012 in Class 3^rd and an entry was made at serial no. 1516 and his date of birth was shown as 12.04.2004. The Court observed that there cannot be two dates of birth of the same person. It was further observed that a different date of birth was mentioned deliberately, which cannot be relied upon as no explanation in this regard came forth before the Court. What is important to note is that Section- 94(2) of Juvenile

¶14

¶15

Justice Act, 2015, which lays down the criteria for determination of age, nowhere says that where multiple documentary evidence which essentially fell in the category as described in Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act are available, one of it may be given preference over the other. Now the pertinent question arises- What a Court is supposed to do where several records from educational institutions as envisaged in Section 94(2)(i) are available and they show different dates of birth? Of course the Court shall have to depend on the document which passed the test of credibility and admissibility both.

¶16

It may be noted that there is nothing to suggest that the date of birth 12.08.2002, initially mentioned in primary school record of the juvenile, was wrong and the date of birth 12.04.2004 subsequently mentioned in the school record of the same school, is his correct date of birth. The reasons for this glaring gap are too obvious to be enumerated. Definitely, in a planned way, the guardian of the juvenile made him leave the school and thereafter applied for admission in the same class and in the same institution showing different date of birth. This is not the case that any municipal certificate etc. was produced before the school authorities at the time of admission in Class-III. The father of the accused admittedly never said that wrong date of birth was recorded in Class-I by mistake. It cannot be said that he was merely four years in Class-I. In this circumstances, it stands to logic that the earlier date of birth 12.08.2002 is correct one for the purposes of this case. In my view, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court have judiciously exercised their powers and that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order, so as to prompt this Court to interfere. No case is made out to exercise the power of revision as provided under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶17

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 9.11.2022

¶19

Vik/-

¶20

¶21

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.09 15:57:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Juvenile (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile (X) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others