RAJE @ RAJENDRA DHAKAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 27-11-2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena in Special Sessions Trial No. 02/2013. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [for short 'the Act'] is rejected.

(2.) It is canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is accused under Sections 377, 294 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012. The alleged incident took place on 06-02-2013. The prosecution mentioned the age of petitioner as 19 years 6 months. The petitioner preferred an application before the Court below, stating that the petitioner was born on 15-07-1996. On the date of incident, he was juvenile. He has not studied in any school. In addition, it is contended that the petitioner's horoscope (Ex. A-1) shows that the petitioner was born on 15-07-1996. By placing reliance on the medical report/ossification test, it is contended that the age of the petitioner is between 16-17 years on 17-07-2013. Thus, on the date of incident, he was juvenile.

(3.) Shri Ankur Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Jabar Singh Vs. Dinesh & Another, 2010 3 SCC 757, submits that the admission register of the school does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 12(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Rules, namely, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 [for short "2007 Rules"]. Putting it simply, Shri Maheshwari, submits that the said provision shows that the evidence for the purpose of age determination should be either (i) matriculation or equivalent certificate; and in absence thereof (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school first attended; and in absence thereof (iii) the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat. If the aforesaid documents mentioned in (i) (ii) and (iii) are not available, the medical opinion will prevail and should be treated as conclusive proof. He submits that no stretch of imagination, the admission register can be equated with the date of birth certificate from the school. Heavy reliance is placed on paragraph 27 of the judgment in Jabar Singh .