In a criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court examined a challenge to an order rejecting the applicant's claim of being a juvenile. The court held there was no perversity or total diversion in the judge's reasoning regarding conflicting school records and medical certificates.
Rule discharged with costs.
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.
wp1106-13.sxw
1/4
Pvr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1106 OF 2013
IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.67 OF 2008
Virendrakumar Ayodhya Maurya …Petitioner versus 1.The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr.A.K.Upadhyay, for Petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent no.1.
Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, for Respondent no.2.
Mr.Ramesh Dhayghude, PSI – Satpur Police Stn. present.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 21h August, 2013
P.C. :
Heard extensively. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Incident dated 15.11.2007 culminated into homicidal death of son of
complainant wherein the accused-applicant is prosecuted and he is facing Sessions trial in Sessions Case no.67 of 2008. The accused applicant asserts, on the date of offence i.e. 15.11.2007 he was a juvenile in conflict with law as his date of birth is 10.3.1992 or 1.7.1991. He was referred before the Medical Board at Dhule which was a competent board for Nashik district where he was medically examined and age determination certificate was issued on 30.3.2011 certifying that the applicant was between 21 – 22 years as on 30.3.2011. Based on such
wp1106-13.sxw
2/4
Pvr
opinion/certificate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 2, Nashik, passed order below Exhibit 1 on 7.4.2011 accepting assertion of the applicant. The aggrieved complainant questioned the same in Writ petition no.1411 of 2011 before this Court and by order dated 9.8.2012, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred above was set aside. The matter was remitted to decide the claim of juvenility within three months, the parties were directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17.8.2012. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge evaluated the evidence/documents and on 26.12.2012 rejected the contention of the applicant to be a juvenile in conflict with law. The said order is questioned.
wp1106-13.sxw
3/4
Pvr
wp1106-13.sxw
4/4
Pvr
applicant showing his date of birth as 1.7.1991 itself is shrouded with doubt as the applicant asserts his date of birth to be 10.3.1992 recorded in school register and transfer certificate form issued by Headmaster, Shishu Shikshan Niketan and Kisanpur Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jagdishpur (Gorakhpur). When two documents which were produced before the learned Judge Exhibit 70 and 71 vis-a-vis school certificate Exhibit 38, had a colour of doubt, there is no inhibition in terms of Rule 12 or Section 7A of J.J.Act, the learned Judge to cause inquiry in the form of evidence as contemplated therein. It is curious, Evidence of Batukdeo Chand and Sanjaykumar Mishra were loud in showing that they have lost original record in transit. Initiation of action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. by accused-petitioner against them, being a different issue, no further comments are recorded.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting the applicant's claim of juvenility.
Whether the judge's failure to refer to the judgment of Ashwani Kumar Saxena warrants supervisory jurisdiction intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Omprakash Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶23
Omprakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012(5) SCC 201) · Who else cites this
Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P.Referred¶28
Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P. (2012 All M.R. (Cri) 3731 (S.C.))
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Virendrakumar Ayodhya Maurya
The State of Maharashtra
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
