Allowed

Manoj Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Oct 2023Cr.A(SJ)/251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an order rejecting an application to declare the appellant a juvenile. The court set aside the lower court's order and directed it to refer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for age determination, including a medical certificate if necessary, to be concluded within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.03.2022 was set aside. The case was directed to be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh for age determination inquiry, preferably within six weeks, with liberty t

Manoj Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 251 of 2023

¶3

Manoj Marandi, son of Pendo Marandi, resident of village: Gari Tola Salujam, PO & PS: Ichak, District: Hazaribagh ... Appellant

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

… ... Respondent

¶7

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶8

For the Appellant :- Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate;

¶9

Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.

¶10

06/16.10.2023: Both the counsels have appeared.

¶11

This appeal arises out of order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 999 of 2021 arising out of ST Case No. 77 of 2019 by the learned ASJ-II, Hazaribagh for setting aside the aforesaid order as it has been passed without following the procedure laid down under section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for ascertaining the age of the appellant on the alleged date of occurrence and for further direction may be issued to the learned Court below to follow the procedure laid down under section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for ascertaining the age of the appellant on the alleged date of occurrence.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had raised points of juvenility during the trial and from perusal of the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2021 passed in ST Case No. 77 of 2019 the age of the appellant is mentioned as 19 years and while recording the statement of the appellant under section 313 CrPC, the Court has assessed the age of the appellant as 19 years and the said statement was recorded by the Court on 21.06.2021.The date of occurrence is 16.10.2018 so admittedly the age of the appellant was under 18 years on the date of occurrence and as such, on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. on 16.10.2018 the appellant was under 18 years of age and he was juvenile.

¶13

The learned Court-below vide order dated 11.03.2022 rejected the application filed by the appellant under Chapter-III section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that from the order rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Chapter-III section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the learned Court-below has mentioned in the order that the appellant was given several opportunity to produce the document and the record was fixed for inquiry

¶15

evidence but no evidence either documentary or oral was adduced on behalf of the appellant. Then in that case the learned Court-below should have followed the above mentioned provision of Section 94(2) (iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 but the learned Court-below did not follow the procedure and rejected the application filed by the appellant on the ground that the age written by the learned Court of Sessions in the format of section 313 CrPC cannot be a ground to declare the appellant juvenile and hence, the application of the appellant was rejected.

¶16

Section 9 (2) & (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act read as under:

¶17

“9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act-

¶18

(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 in 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:

¶19

Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized 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 commencement of this Act.

¶20

(3) If the court finds a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of the offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.”

¶21

Section 94(2)&(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:

¶22

“(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought 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-

¶23

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school,or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerend examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat;

¶24

(iii) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii)above, age shall be determined by ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

¶25

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.”

¶26

The appellant has mentioned in para-2 of the main petition that the appellant had filed IA No. 1857 of 2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 506 of 2022

¶27

for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 999 of 2021 and further prayer was made under section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act for making an enquiry of the appellant and that he may be sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh for carrying out necessary enquiry vis-a-vis determination of age of the appellant on the date of occurrence and vide order dated 27.02.2023 the Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the said IA No.1857 of 2023 with a liberty to search out the remedy of appeal as available under the statute. Thereafter current appeal Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 251 of 2023 was filed for setting aside aforesaid order dated 11.03.2022.

¶28

The learned senior counsel has referred to and relied upon the order of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 501 of 2013 with IA No. 3990 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015 and has submitted that in the said case the case of the appellant was directed to be sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh for carrying out necessary enquiry vis-a-vis determination of the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence.

¶29

Therefore, the learned senior counsel has submitted that in the present case also, direction may be given to the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the juvenility of the appellant.

¶30

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that when the officerin-charge of Ichak police station in compliance of direction issued by the Court, approached mother of the appellant, he came to know that the appellant has never studied at any level, hence, there is no such age proof, however, his mother provided photocopy of Aadhaar card of the appellant having age of year 2002. The mother of the appellant has stated on photocopy of Aadhaar card that her younger son has not studied in school and subsequent to that, provided Aadhaar card of the appellant in support of his age.

¶31

Having heard both the counsels, gone through the records of the case, in the facts and circumstances and in the light of the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in IA No. 1857 of 2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 506 of 2022 and the order dated 29.07.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 501 of 2013 with IA No. 3990 of 2014, the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Misc. Cr. Appl. No. 999 of 2021 arising out of ST Case No. 77 of 2019 by the learned ASJ-II, Hazaribagh is set aside.

¶32

The learned Court-below is directed to send the case of the appellant to the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh for carrying out necessary enquiry vis-a-vis determination of the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence. If necessary, the help of the Medical Board should also be taken for ascertaining the age of the appellant on the date of occurrence. It is also directed that the said enquiry shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶33

This criminal appeal is allowed, with the aforesaid terms.

¶34

S.B.

¶35

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

Manoj Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun Rai Alias Mithun Kumar Alias Mithun Vs Union of India through Ncb

Sri Ram Kumar Alias Sri Ram Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abutalib Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panda Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand