M BABU Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed by the detenu himself to review the order, dated 25.07.2013, passed in H.C.P.(MD).No.134 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the relief sought by the wife of the review petitioner to produce her husband viz., the review petitioner / detenu, aged about 38 years, convict No.87346, detained at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty on the ground that on the date of commission of the offence, he was a juvenile, was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this case is as follows;

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition, the earlier Division Bench of this Court has not taken into consideration the provision of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and also Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Relying on the said provisions and also relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhaya Pradesh, 2013 AIR(SC) 553 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to determine the age of the accused, who claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the commission of offence, the Court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and only in the absence of any such matriculation or equivalent certificates, the Court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than the play school. Only in the absence of these certificates, the Court can obtain medical certificate from a duly constituted Medical Board. If the exact assessment of age cannot be determined, then the Court for the reasons recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year. In the instant case, the Record Sheet (Transfer Certificate) of the school where the petitioner herein had studied, was produced and the genuinenity of the same was also not denied by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, there is no necessity to order for an enquiry. However, the earlier Division Bench ordered for an enquiry through the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur and based on the enquiry report submitted by the learned Principal District Judge, in which the age of the detenu was determined as 18 years, dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the petitioner.