Md. Matab Uddin Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Md. Matab Uddin Vs the State of Assam — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order set aside; petitioner declared juvenile/child in conflict with law below 18 years on 10.04.2009; learned Sessions Judge directed to act accordingly; LCR to be sent back; any existing stay to stand vacated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Md. Matab Uddin, was a juvenile/child in conflict with law (below 18 years) on 10th April, 2009 — the date of occurrence — notwithstanding the learned Sessions Judge's refusal to believe his school-certificate date of birth (15.02.1994).

Ratio / Principle

No parent would tell a false date of birth at the time of admission of his/her child in a school on the assumption that within a fixed period the child would commit an offence and thereby get the benefit of being a juvenile/child in conflict with law; hence reliance on the school certificate is legitimate.

Key takeaways

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 itself speaks of a school certificate showing date of birth for determination of the age of a child; the learned Sessions Judge therefore unnecessarily disbelieved the school certificate.ratio¶¶26
The learned Sessions Judge had erroneously oriented himself and arrived at an incorrect finding; the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner Md. Matab Uddin shall be considered a juvenile/child in conflict with law, below 18 years of age on 10.04.2009, the learned Sessions Judge to act accordingly.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Crl.Rev.P. No.17/2013, Gauhati High Court (Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.), judgment dated 04.06.2025 (CAV). Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No.60/2011 (nine accused; offence dated 10.04.2009). The Sessions Judge had refused to believe the petitioner's school certificate (DOB 15.02.1994) after witness Sabbir Ahmed deposed that the admission-register date of birth rested on verbal information. Held: parents would not state a false date of birth at school admission anticipating future juvenile-status benefit; Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 itself recognises a school certificate showing date of birth for age determination, so the certificate was unnecessarily disbelieved. Petitioner Md. Matab Uddin held to be a juvenile/child in conflict with law, below 18 years on 10.04.2009; impugned order set aside; Criminal Revision Petition disposed of accordingly; LCR to be sent back; stay, if any, vacated.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010128512013

2025:GAU-AS:7251

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./17/2013

MD. MATAB UDDIN

S/O MD. ABDUL KHALIQUE @ KULA MIA, R/O VILL- MALAIDIGIRPAR P.O. MARJAD KANDI P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S C BISWAS, MR.B CHOUDHURY,MS.A DEY,MS.A DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,,

:: PRESENT ::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Biswas, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P. Borthakur, Addl. P.P., Assam. Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025. Date of Judgment : 04.06.2025.

Page No.# 2/3

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No.60/2011.

3. In Sessions Case No.60/2011 pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, there were 9 accused persons and one of them is the present petitioner. He claimed to be a juvenile on 10^th April, 2009, the date of occurrence of the offence.

4. In order to establish his date of birth, he produced the school certificate, wherein his date of birth was shown as 15.02.1994. In order to come to a decision, the court examined 4 witnesses, namely- Sabbir Ahmed, the son of the deceased, Juber Ahmed and Jakir Hussain.

5. The court accepted that the school certificate that showed the petitioner to be below 18 years of age on 10^th April, 2009. The court further held that except this certificate, there were no other documents to support that fact.

6. In respect of the School Admission Register, the first court witness Sabbir Ahmed told the court that the petitioner was admitted into the school on the basis of verbal information regarding his date of birth. On the basis of the said statement, the learned Sessions Judge refused to believe the school certificate.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

8. No parents would tell a false date of birth at the time of admission of his/her child in a school on an assumption that within a fixed period of time, his/her child would commit an offence and he/she will therefore, get the benefit of being a juvenile/child in conflict with law. Even, Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Page No.# 3/3

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 also speaks about a school certificate showing date of birth for determination of age of a child. The learned Sessions Judge unnecessarily disbelieved the school certificate.

9. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge had erroneously oriented himself and arrived at an incorrect finding. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner Md. Matab Uddin shall be considered as a juvenile/child in conflict with law, below 18 years of age on 10^th April, 2009. The learned Sessions Judge shall do accordingly.

The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Send back the LCR. Stay order, if there is any, shall stand vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant