STATE OF BIHAR Vs. CHHOTU PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is, whether the Respondent was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence. It is not in dispute that the offence was committed on 21.8.2011. The Respondent in order to establish his juvenility placed reliance on his matriculation certificate which depicted his date of birth as 2.1.1994. If the aforesaid date of birth is to be taken into consideration, the Respondent would admittedly be a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Despite the availability of the matriculation certificate for the determination of the age of the Respondent, the trial Court directed a medical examination of the Respondent. The said direction was assailed by the Respondent before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the said direction. It is in these circumstances, that the State of Bihar has filed the present appeal before this Court.

(2.) Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand, we are satisfied, that in terms of the mandate contained in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, in the event of the claim of juvenility being ascertainable on the basis of a matriculation certificate, it is not open to the opposite party to demand a medical examination for establishing the age of the accused/convict. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, this Court, having considered the matter in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 9 SCC 750, observed as under:

(3.) In view of the clear expression contained in Rule 12(3) of the aforementioned Rules, which have been duly considered by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena's case , we are satisfied, that the instant appeal filed by the State of Bihar is wholly misconceived. The same is accordingly hereby rejected.