MANOWAR ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order/ judgment dated 05.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Sahibganj in Enquiry No.01 of 2013, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for declaring him to be a juvenile, has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition had been filed in the court below for declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile, as he was aged about 17 years on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 25.05.2011 and his date of birth is mentioned as 05.08.1994 in the school certificate, issued by the Jamia Shahaganjpeer School, Bhagalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2007 (in short J.J Rules) prescribes that to determine the age of juvenile, the enquiry has to be conducted by the Court or by the Board; firstly by considering the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate, if available has to be looked into; in the absence thereof, the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school); in the absence whereof, the birth certificate given by a corporation or any certified authority or panchayat should be considered and if there is any doubt regarding the documents then a medical opinion can be sought from the duly constituted Medical Board.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below has not appreciated the fact that during enquiry E.W. - 2, Principal of the Jamia Shahaganjpeer School, Bhagalpur had deposed that the age of the petitioner is mentioned 05.08.1994 in the Register and the E.W. - 3, father of the petitioner, had also stated the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.08.1994; that the document related to the admission register of Jamia Shahaganjpeer School, Bhagalpur was exhibited as Ext. - 1, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 05.08.1994. Thus, there is material on record to show that the petitioner was aged about 17 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 25.05.2011.