Mantosh Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 28. 02.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge - 1st -cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad, passed in Special (P) Case No.43 of 2016, whereby the prayer of the petitioner, to declare him a juvenile, has been rejected.

Learned counsel, for the petitioner has submitted that as per the F.I.R the date of occurrence is 13.07.2014. The petitioner had produced his matriculation certificate in which his date of birth is recorded as 20.12.2000. However, the informant/ O.P. No.02 had produced another certificate issued by the In-charge Headmaster, Middle School, Singhdaha, Topchanchi, Dhanbad, wherein date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 20.12.1998. That in view of the discrepancy of the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate and the certificate produced by the informant, the court below in terms of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act, 2000') read with Rule 12(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, (in short 'the Rules, 2007'), ordered for constitution of a Medical Board for determining the age of the petitioner. The Medical Board submitted the report on 01.02.2018 assessing the age of the petitioner as 19 years.

It is argued by the learned counsel that the court below has committed manifest error in assessing the age of the petitioner as 19 years as on date of occurrence without considering the fact that the Medical Board's report is dated 1.02.2018 and his age has been assessed as 19 years as on the said date. It is submitted that since the age of the petitioner was determined as 19 years on 01.02.2018 therefore he was below 15 years of the age on 13.07.2014, i.e., the date of occurrence. The court below has committed gross error in not considering this aspect.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant/ O.P. No.02, assisted by the learned A.P.P., has submitted that the court has assessed the age of the petitioner as 19 years, therefore, he is not a juvenile. That Cr. Revision No.1154 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. That the order impugned does not suffer from any perversity warranting any interference by this Court.

Heard. Section 7 of the Act, 2000 provides for conducting enquiry for determining the age of a juvenile. The determination of age is to be done in accordance to the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007. It is not disputed that due to the discrepancy in the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate and the age as mentioned in the school certificate produced by the informant, the court ordered for constituting a Medical Board under Rule 12(b) of the Rules, 2007, for determining the age of the petitioner. It is evident that in the matriculation certificate and the school certificate, issued by the In-charge Headmaster, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 20.12.2000 and 20.12.1998 respectively. Thus considering the anomaly in the date of birth, the court ordered for determining the age of the petitioner by a duly constituted Medical Board. In the report submitted by the Medical Board, the petitioner's age was assessed as 19 years as on 01.02.2018. The date of occurrence is 13.07.2014. The determination of age by the Medical Board leaves no room for doubt that on 13.07.2014, the petitioner's age was below 16 (sixteen) years. The court below has committed manifest error in assessing the age of the petitioner as 19 years without appreciating the fact that the Medical Board's report is dated 01.02.2018 and by no stretch of imagination the age as determined by the Medical Board would be assessment of age as 19 years on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 13.07.2014.

Admittedly the petitioner was aged below 16 years as on 13.07.2014, accordingly the order dated 28.02.2018 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

The records of the case should be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, which shall conduct the enquiry in accordance with law

With the said direction, the revision application stands allowed.