Dismissed

Narendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2022CRLR/993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging age determination, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' decision to declare the accused a juvenile. The Court relied on consistent school records from Class 1 to 10, finding a discrepancy in the High School Gazette likely due to a clerical error, and held that the Juvenile Justice Board applied the law correctly.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed against the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed.

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved on 18.10.2022 Delivered on 02.11.2022

¶2

Court No. - 91

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 993 of 2022

¶4

Revisionist :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babban Prasad Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Babban Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad and the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, whereby the child in conflict with law (respondent no.2 in the instant revision) was declared juvenile and the appeal was dismissed in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.78 of 2020, under sections- 302, 307 I.P.C., Police StationKamalganj, District- Farrukhabad.

¶9

Relevant facts leading to this criminal revision are as below:-

¶10

An F.I.R. being Case Crime No.07 of 2020, under sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. was lodged against five named accused including the juvenile and one unnamed person. On this basis of this F.I.R., the investigation commenced. Finding one of the accused is juvenile, the matter was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted the age determination inquiry on 08.02.2021 and declared the accused juvenile as below 18, aged about 17 years and 8 months on the date of occurrence. Against the above order, the informant preferred an appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2021. The appellate court after hearing both the sides concurred with the opinion of the Juvenile Justice Board. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the informant before this Court in this criminal revision.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the orders have been passed without application of mind and against the principles of law applicable in the matters of determination of age and as also against the

¶12

provisions of Section- 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The courts ignored the fact that the High School certificate mentioned the date of birth as 28.08.2001. The courts below relied on other documents filed in this case in which the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 18.07.2002. This fact was also ignored that the defence side tried to conceal the fact that the juvenile had passed the Class- 10 and that his High School certificate denoted a different date of birth.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this criminal revision.

¶14

I went through the impugned orders and through the material available on record; it appears that there is no dispute as to the facts that the revisionist-accused studied in Ram Shyam Inter College, Kamalganj from Class-1 to Class-5 and that thereafter studied in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bijpuri, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad fom Class-6 to Class-8. The principla of Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bijbhoori Kamalganj, Farrukhabad verified the fact of studying in class-6 to class-8 in her institution and that the juvenile took admission in the institution on the basis of a transfer certificate which mentioned his date of birth as 18.07.2002 and the same date of birth is mentioned in the record of aforesaid school of Kamalganj, Farrukhabad. It has also come in evidence that transfer certificate was issued admittedly by his previous educational institution, i.e., Ram Shyam Shiksha Niketan, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad. The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court evaluated the statements given by juvenile's mother, the Principal of the school, where the juvenile admittedly studied after passing from the primary school and found no suspicious circumstances to disbelieve them. The third witness- Ajeet Kumar, Principal of the institution where the juvenile studied in class-9 and 10 has also stated that as per his school record, his date of birth is 18.07.2002.

¶15

However, the informant produced a High School Gazette- 2017 published by U.P. Board, wherein the date of birth was shown as 28.08.2001. On the basis of this paper the controversy as to correct date of birth arose. The witness C.W.5 also deposed in this connection that though his school record showed correct date of birth as 18.07.2002, however the Gazette mentioned above did show a different date of birth. He added that a correction slip for correction of date of birth in High School Gazette- 2017 has been filed. The Juvenile Justice Board came to a conclusion that the correct date of birth is 18.07.2002 and not 28.08.2001.

¶16

The appellate court again appreciated all the documentary as well as oral evidence before it in the light of submission from the side of appellant-informant and concurred with the conclusion as has been drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board. It may be noted that before the appellate court too, the revisionist contended that the fact of his

¶17

¶18

(juvenile) passing High School examination was deliberately concealed by him and that the High School Gazette- 2017 showed a different date of birth, i.e., 28.08.2001. Therefore, the correct date of birth must be taken as 28.08.2001. The appellate court appreciated all the evidence in the light of contentions of the appellant.

¶19

It is evident that all the educational record of the juvenile-accused showed his date of birth as 18.07.2002 right from class-1 to 8. The transfer certificate issued by the institution from where the accused passed his class-10 also showed the same date of birth. The only paper which shows a different date of birth is a High School Gazette- 2017. The stand of the juvenile is that this is a clerical mistake for correction whereof an application has been given to some authorities.

¶20

Section- 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 speaks of date of birth certificate from High School or matriculation or equivalent certificate from concerned Board/Authority, if available to be given precedence over papers falling in the category as envisaged in section94(2)(ii) Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 like date of birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or panchayat. Section- 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 no where speaks of giving inter-se precedence between the certificates falling within same category. The school record from Class-1 to class-10 consistently showed certain date of birth (18.07.2022). The only discrepancy is a different date of birth in High School Gazette, a paper which cannot be termed as a paper falling within the category of papers as envisaged either under section- 94(2)(i) or section- 94(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Hence, no value can be attached to it. Moreover, it appears that there is some inadvertent clerical mistake in publication of High School Gazette. In my view, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court committed no mistake on depending upon the undisputed educational papers placed before the Court which showed his date of birth as 18.07.2002 right from class-1 to class-10.

¶21

I find no illegality, incorrectness, or impropriety in the orders, therefore, this criminal revision is dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 02.11.2022

¶23

Saif

¶24

¶25

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.02 15:07:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra 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

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

Kapil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others