A juvenility claim involved conflicting matriculation certificates recording different birth dates. The Court upheld the trial court's authority to inquire into age and dismissed the revision against rejection of the claim.
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.
1
A.F.R.
Reserved on: 16.5.2022 Delivered on: 15.7.2022
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 614 of 2021 Revisionist :- Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kirtikar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
"Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 27.1.2021, passed by A.S.J./F.T.C.-II, Ballia, in S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No. 745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia whereby the application of the revisionist declaring himself to be juvenile, has been rejected.
The submission of counsel for the revisionist is that the procedure as prescribed under section 94 of the Juvenile
2
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has not been followed. He further argues that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the matriculation certificate filed by the revisionist is forged one, in the alternative, even if the Court came to the said conclusion, the subsequent procedure as prescribed under section 94 should have been resorted which have not been done. Thus, the order suffers from material irregularity.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken to serve the opposite party no. 2 within two weeks.
The opposite party no. 2 shall file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 28.4.2021.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in S.T. No. 54 of 2018 (State vs. Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No. 745 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Police Station Dokati, District Ballia shall remain stayed as against the revisionist only. "
3
Dokati, District Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R, 12 persons namely, Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan, Vishal Singh @ Bua, Sonu Singh, Pawan Singh, Krishna Singh, Bhola Singh, Chandan Singh, Monu, Chotu, Ajeet Singh, Shivjogit Singh, Dharmendra Singh have been nominated as named accused.
4
prosecution/first informant-opposite party-2. According to first informantopposite party-2, revisionist was major on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.11.2017 as he was more than 18 years of age. Revisionist has passed his High School Examination conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the year 2016 with Roll No. 2312942. The date of birth of revisionist recorded in the mark-sheet, pertaining to above noted examination is 9.1.1999. As such, on the date of occurrence which is 4.11.2017 revisionist was aged about 18 years 10 months and 3 days.
"1. To declare this accused Vishal Singh alias Peterson this present application has been filed on his behalf but without assigning any particular provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 or Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
5
the records that the entire focus of this Court presided over my learned Predecessor was to extract truth circumfenced with a particular certificate claiming as of matriculation by calling witnesses and for recording their evidence in respect of the said certificate. Keeping in mind the guiding light transmitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena case, this Court is not ready to go along with the process opted by his learned predecessor. This is on record that the matriculation certificate filed by the applicant is very aggressively opposed by the prosecution accompanied with victim's Advocate and the prosecution has vehemently raised question over the veracity of this certificate. Although the prosecution has filed a photocopy of a certificate of a person named as Peterson Ram and has claimed that this is very same person as of the accused claiming his name as Vishal Kumar Singh alias Peterson here this is very pertinent to note that everywhere in the case record Vishal Singh alias Peterson has been mentioned and nowhere in the record Vishal Kumar Singh alias Peterson noted and this is very well settled in Criminal Jurisprudence System name of the accused has utmost important value and even difference of one word in the name of the accused can create a very big difference as well as consequence. However, this Court has no intention to give place the photocopy of the alleged certificate of a person namely Peterson Ram on the record to consider further but this is also truth this has already created serious doubt in the mind of this Court regarding veracity of the alleged matriculation certificate which was allegedly produced for establishing the accused as minor.
6
well as other ancillary papers to show this particular person has appeared in the matriculation examination on that stipulated date conducted by the U.P. Secondary Board, Lucknow within a week to this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
Notice be issued for the aforesaid purposes to the S.H.O. of the Police Station Dokati, Ballia related with this Sessions Trial No. 54/2018 (Case Crime No. 745/2017) and to the Director, U.P. Secondary Board, Lucknow."
7
producing A.P.W.1 Arjun Yadav (Record Keeper of Kesari Balika Higher Secondary School, Shobha Chapra, District- Ballia) and A.P.W.2 Rita Devi (mother of revisionist).
the concerned police has brazenly taken two stances in their two reports that in report dated 15.10.2020 the police speaks that it talked with the said Naveen Singh on telephone whereas in report dated 28.12.2020 the police says that Naveen Singh's old number is running switched off.
as under:
" hence this person can only prove the fact of presence of such records in the school but cannot prove the contents therein noted in the documents which he brought before the Court"
"From the aforesaid testimonies of this APW2, mother of the applicant this only can be drawn out that this witness, however she was mother of the applicant was not able to tell the exact date of birth of her son because at the one hand she deposed that the applicant's date of birth was11 17.2.2000 but on the other hand she has admitted that she was an illiterate and she had memorized the age of (not the date of birth) the applicant through Pandit Ji. "
8
failed to do so, Court below by means of impugned judgement and order dated 27.1.2021 rejected the application (paper no.3ka) filed by revisionist claiming juvenility.
9
informant-opposite party-2 to dispute the claim of juvenility raised by revisionist.
10
by Police of Police Station Dokati were rightly disbelieved as no attempt was made to verify the genuineness of the two certificate-cum-marksheet of High School examination undertaken by revisionist in the year 2014 and 2016 respectively or the date of birth of revisionist.
(1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.
(2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be:
(3) Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of
11
commencement of this Act.
(3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.
(4) In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person's claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety.
“Presumption and Determination of Age- (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining –
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.
“Procedure to be followed in determination of Age. (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall
12
determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.
(2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of he age as regards such child or Ihe juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing
13
appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.”
" 32. “Age determination inquiry” contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
14
promotion, etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination."
" 39. Now, we summarise the position which is as under:
39.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after the final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in the appeal court.
39.2. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility.
39.3. As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh [(2009) 7 SCC 415 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 431] and Pawan [(2009) 15 SCC 259 : (2010) 2 SCC
15
(Cri) 522] these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh [(2010) 13 SCC 523 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 857] the documents viz. school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent.
39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of the age of the delinquent.
39.5. The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in the 2000 Act are not defeated by the hypertechnical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of the 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
39.6. Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at the threshold whenever raised.
"36. It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness of date of birth, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which raises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain[Abuzar Hossainv.State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] , an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is
16
permissible which has been done in the present case." 35. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another (2019) 12 SCC 370, the Bench took notice of above mentioned judgements and delianted its view in paragraph 15 in following words:
" 15. The above decision in Abuzar Hossain [Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] was rendered on 10-10-2012. Though the earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] was not cited before the Court, it appears from the above extract that the three-Judge Bench observed that the credibility and acceptability of the documents, including the school leaving certificate, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard-andfast rule as such could be laid down. Concurring with the judgment of R.M. Lodha, J., T.S. Thakur, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that directing an inquiry is not the same thing as declaring the accused to be a juvenile. In the former the court simply records a prima facie conclusion while in the latter a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Hence the approach at the stage of directing the inquiry has to be more liberal : (Abuzar Hossain case[Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 83] , SCC pp. 513-14, para 48)
17
raised by an accused then such Court is competent to make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary excluding an affidavit and thereafter record a finding on the matter stating the age of person as nearly as may be. As such, the order impugned in present criminal revision cannot be faulted on the ground that Court below had no jurisdiction in the matter.
18
19
undertake an enquiry for adjudicating the date of birth of revisionist, is wholly misconceived.
20
which would establish his date of birth as 17.12.2000. The marksheet/High School certificate of revisionist relied upon by the prosecution wherein the date of birth of revisionist is mentioned as 09.01.1999, could not be disputed in the light of evidence, if any, adduced by revisionist. There is one more aspect of the matter. The principal of the Institution was not discarded as there was no such evidence adduced by revisionist. No evidence was led by revisionist to corroborate the entry regarding his date of birth as 17.12.2000 occurring in the High School certificate. At this stage, the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph-28 of the judgement in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2008 (13) SCC 133 become relevant. Accordingly, same is extracted herein under:-
“28. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded.”
“14. We would now consider the evidence produced by the respondent on the question of age of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent examined Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW5. Anantram sharma PW 3 has been the Principal of New Government Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur since 1984. On the basis of the scholar's register he stated before the High Court that Hukmi Chand joined school on 24.6. 1972 in 9th class and his date of birth as mentioned in scholar's register was 13.6.1956. He made this statement on the basis of the entries contained in the scholar's register Ex. 8. He admitted that entries in the scholar's register are made on the basis of the entries contained in the admission form. He could not produce the admission form in original or its copy. He stated that Hukmi Chand was admitted in 9th class on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the Government Middle School, Palasni from where he had passed 8th standard. He proved the signature of Satya
21
Narain Mathur the then Principal who had issued the copy of the scholar's register Ex. 8. Satya Narain Mathur was admittedly alive but he was not examined to show as to on what basis he had mentioned the date of birth of Hukmi Chand in Ex. 8. The evidence of Anantram Sharma merely proved that Ex. 8 was a copy of entries in scholar's register. His testimony does not show as to on what basis the entry relating to date of birth of Hukmi Chand was made in the scholar's register. Kailash Chandra Taparia PW 5 was Deputy Director (Examination) Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, he produced the counter foil of Secondary Education Certificate of Hukmi Chand Bhandari. a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 9. He also proved the tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination 1974, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 10. In both these documents Hukmi Chand's date of birth was recorded as 13.6.1956. Kailash Chandra Taparia further proved Ex. 11 which is the copy of the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination of 1977 relating to SuraJ Prakash Joshi. In that document the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi was recorded 11.3.1959 Kailash Chandra Taparia stated that date of birth as mentioned in the counter foil of the certificates and in the tabulation form Ex. 12 was recorded on the basis of the date of birth mentioned by the candidate in the examination form. But the examination form or its copy was not produced before Court. In substance the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses merely prove that in the scholar's register as well as in the Secondary School examination records the date of birth of a certain Hukmi Chand was mentioned as 13.6.1956 and in the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination a certain suraj Prakash Joshi's date of birth was mentioned as 11.3.1959. No evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that the aforesaid documents related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi who had filed nomination nation papers. Neither the admission form nor the examination form on the basis of which the aforesaid entries relating to the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded was produced before the High Court. “No doubt, Exs. 8, 9. 10. 11 and 12 are relevant and admissible but these documents have no evidentiary value for purpose of proof of date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi as the vital piece of evidence is missing, because no evidence was placed before the Court to show on whose information the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and the date of birth of Suraj Prakash Joshi were recorded in the aforesaid document. As already stated neither of the parents of the two candidates nor any other person having special knowledge about their date of birth was examined by the respondent to prove the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents. Parents or near relations having special knowledge are the best person to depose about the date of birth of a person. If entry regarding date of birth in the scholars register is made on the information given by parents or some one having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value. The testimony of Anantram Sharma and Kailash Chandra Taparia merely prove the documents but the contents of those documents were not proved. The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry
22
in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made in the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. ” Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts. namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted.”
“32. Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. It contemplates that a register maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such register is kept would be a relevant fact. This Court in a judgement reported as Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. held as under:-
'23. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in the ordinary course of business by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which, inter alia, such register is kept 18 (2006) 5 SCC 584 would be a relevant fact. Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder: (i) it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register; (ii) it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact; (iii) entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country; and (iv) all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto.'
23
“29. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:
(iib) If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with Sub-section (2) of Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
(iic) When an application claiming juvenility is made Under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the matter regarding the alleged commission of offence is pending before a Court, then the procedure contemplated Under
24
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the said provision if the JJ Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Board shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence and the age recorded by the JJ Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age of that person. Hence the degree of proof required in such a proceeding before the JJ Board, when an application is filed seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial is before the concerned criminal court, is higher than when an inquiry is made by a court before which the case regarding the commission of the offence is pending (vide Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015).
25
the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences.
Order Date :- 15.07.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.07.19 13:35:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Could the trial court inquire into juvenility despite an available matriculation certificate when conflicting certificates raised doubt about the recorded birth date?
Did the evidence supporting the juvenility claim warrant interference with its rejection?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶101
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2019) 12 SCC 370 · Who else cites this
Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶103
Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750 · Who else cites this
Abuzar Hossain @ Ghulam Hossasin Vs. State of West BengalApplied¶108
Abuzar Hossain @ Ghulam Hossasin Vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 · Who else cites this
Prag Bhati Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶118
Prag Bhati Vs. State of U.P. (2016) 12 SCC 744 · Who else cites this
Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and AnotherRelied on¶142
Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2008 (13) SCC 133 · Who else cites this
Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand PurohitRelied on¶144
Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 · Who else cites this
Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana and AnotherRelied on¶150
Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 185 · Who else cites this
Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Applied¶155
Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 1079 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar Singh
State of U.P.
Surya Dev Pandey
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
