Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4747 of 2019 Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Bahadur Singh,Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against impugned order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2019. By that order the learned court below has rejected the Criminal Appeal preferred by the revisionist against order of Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi dated 11.07.2019 passed in Case Crime No. 01 of 2019 (State Versus Arun Gaud), under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Lohata, District Varanasi by which the Juvenile Justice Board had declared the opposite party no.2 as juvenile on the date of incident.
The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 01.01.2019 was lodged as Case Crime No.01 of 2019 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Lohata, District Varanasi in respect of murder of one Prem Chandra Singh, elder brother of revisionist's father. The post mortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 01.01.2019 wherein the doctor reported cause of death as a result of ante mortem injuries. The said case was investigated and ultimately charge-sheet against the accused-persons including opposite party no.2 on 09.03.2019 and cognizance was also taken.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that father of the opposite party no.2 moved an application to declare opposite party no.2 juvenile in conflict of law on the basis of his High School Mark-sheet and certificate. The Juvenile Justice Board proceeded to inquire into the case for juvenility wherein statement of opposite party no.3 as well as Principal of the college was recorded and completed on 21.02.2019 and 27.06.2019. The Juvenile Justice Board relying on said material passed impugned order dated 11.07.2019 whereby opposite party no.2,Sujeet Kumar Patel was declared juvenile. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal before the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi on the ground that the father of the accused-juvenile has deposed that the opposite party no.2 has studied only upto Class-V from Adarsh School whereas according to the certificate of accused he has passed Class-I from Vikas Inter College. No document from Adarsh School has been filed by him while certificate from Saraswati Shiksha Mandir has been filed. Thus Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board has erred in not getting any medical examination of the accused-opposite party no.2. Therefore, the orders passed by the courts below declaring opposite party no.2 as juvenile may be quashed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has opposed the prayer of the revisionist and stated that orders declaring the opposite party no.2 as juvenile are just and proper and do call for any interference by this Court.
Perusal of order shows that opposite party no.2 has been declared juvenile on the basis of date of birth as 11.08.2002 shown in his High School certificate.
Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read as under:-
(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."
Perusal of the record shows that high school certificate of the juvenile,Sujeet Kumar Patel has been filed, according to which his date of birth is 11.08.2002. Transfer certificate of the Vikas Intercollege is on record which shows same date of birth of opposite party no.2 as 11.08.2002. The prosecution has failed to show any document which could show that date of birth of Sujeet Kumar Patel is not 11.08.2002. In the present case where high school certificate is available on record, there is no requirement of medical examination under the provisions of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the courts below are just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court.There is no manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.
The present revision lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 MN/-