VIDHI VIRUDH BALIKA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred under Sec. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015") assailing the appeal judgment dtd. 14/12/2022 passed by the 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.478/2022 (Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and Others), whereby the appeal preferred by father of the deceased against the order dtd. 21/11/2019, passed by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board has been allowed by setting aside the order dtd. 21/11/2019 whereby the juvenile in conflict with law was found to be below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence. By the impugned order, she has been declared as major on the date of commission of offence.

(2.) As per the allegations, in the intervening night of 27-28/07/2019 juvenile in conflict with law alongwith two others committed murder of Piyush Jain who was her lover. Charge sheet was filed against applicant juvenile in conflict with law before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal. The application was filed by the father of the deceased Piyush Jain before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal stating that on the date of commission of offence, she was a major and was not a juvenile. Enquiry was conducted and statements of three witnesses were recorded. Juvenile Justice Board after examining the documents and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence i.e. on 27/7/2019 applicant was a juvenile and was below 18 years of age. The said order was challenged before the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal under Sec. 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015 and by impugned order dtd. 14/12/2022, on the basis of birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Sagar and on the basis of entry made in the register of Manokamna Nursing Home, Sagar learned ASJ came to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence applicant was not a juvenile as her date of birth is 23/9/1999 and she was 18 years and 10 months old and set aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and directed that applicant be tried for commission of offence along with other co-accused persons in Sessions Court for commission of murder.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that on the date of commission of offence, she was a minor and on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the school certificate, charge sheet was filed against her in the Juvenile Justice Board and Juvenile Justice Board by its order dtd. 21/11/2019 assessed her age below 18 years on the date of commission of offence, but learned appellate Court on the basis of so called birth certificate issued after the date of commission of offence and only on the basis of entries made in the register of Manokamna Nursing Home has wrongly come to the conclusion that on the date of commission of offence, she was above 18 years of age. It is submitted that applicant was a juvenile, on the date of commission of offence and same is apparent from her matriculation certificate. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dtd. 21/11/2019 rightly declared her to be 17 years and 11 months old on the date of commission of offence. It is contended that on the basis of birth certificate and register of the nursing home which was not proved by doctor Saini who runs the nursing home, it was not justified on the part of the appellate Court to accept them as true and set aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and to declare her above 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence.