SANDEEP PAPPI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was arrested for the commission of an offence under section 302 and section 450 of the Indian Penal Code. After his arrest, challan was filed by the police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cbhindwara. The Chief Judicial Magis remanded the matter rate. Chhindwara to the Juvenile Court, Narsinghpur, as according to him, the school certificate shows the age of the applicant to be below 16 year at the time of the commission of the offence, which is said to have taken place on 12/7/1989. The Juvenile Court, Narsinhpur directed medical examination of the applicant for ascertaining the age. On 23/10/1989, the medical report was received showing the age of the applicant to be between 17 to 19 years. Accordingly relying on the medical certificate, the Juvenile Court passed an order on 27/10/1989 sending back the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara. This order- of the Juvenile Court Narsingpur is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant contended, and in my opinion rightly so, that when there is a certificate showing the age of the applicant to be below 16 years at the time of the incident, the Juvenile Court should have relied on the school certificate for ascertaining the age of the applicant at the time of the incident and not the medical certificate. The school certificate, which is said to have been seized by the police at the time of the arrest of the applicant, shows the date of birth of the applicant to be 16/8/1973. If this date is taken to be correct, then on the date of the incident, i.e. on 12/7/1989, the applicant was below 16 years of age and was a juvenile within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

(3.) The Juvenile Court has strongly relied on the medical certificate, according to which the age of the applicant was 17 to 19 years. It is now well settled that the age given on medical examination is not the exact age and a margin of two to three years either side. There is nothing on record, nor pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State, any infirmity in the school-leaving certificate where under a different view of the matter is to be taken. In the absence of any material on record, the Juvenile Court should have relied upon the school-leaving certificate of the applicant. It is also not stated by the counsel for the State that the school-leaving certificate does not relate to the applicant.