FULCHAND ORAON Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 21.4.2015 in ST. No. 385 of 2014 arising out of G.R. No. 236 of 2014 corresponding to Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 16 of 2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -IIIrd, Gumla, whereby the petitioner's prayer for declaring him a juvenile has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision in the case of Subodh Nath and Another v/s. State of Tripura reported in : (2013)4 SCC 122 has contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for determining the age of juvenile in conflict with law an enquiry is to be conducted under Sec. 7 -A of the J.J. Act and the procedure as prescribed under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, has to be adhered to in every case concerning the juvenile in conflict with law. Learned counsel has submitted that Rule 12, prescribes that for determination of the age of a juvenile, firstly the matriculation or equivalent certificates of the juvenile in conflict with law shall be considered; in absence thereof the date of birth certificate from the school (other than the play school) first attended, and in the absence, thereof, birth certificate issued by Corporation or Municipal Authority or the Panchayat is to be looked into. It is only in the absence of the certificates as enumerated under Sec. 12(3)(a)(i), (ii), (iii) that the medical opinion can be sought in terms of Rule 12(3)(b). That the petitioner had produced the school admission register as also the school transfer certificate wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as 2.10.1998. That the court below without following the procedure of enquiry as mandated under Sec. 7 -A of the J.J. Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 has called for the medical report. Such an order is against the provisions of law and the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) Learned A.P.P. has submitted that as per the medical report the petitioner was aged 19 years on the date of the alleged crime and the order does not require any interference.

(3.) Heard. It is settled principle that for determining the age of juvenile in conflict with law an enquiry is to be conducted under Sec. 7 -A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. It is amply clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without following the procedure, and without considering the documents of the petitioner has called for the medical opinion regarding the age of the petitioner. Such an order is not in consonance with the provision and is in contravention to law and the procedure prescribed under the J.J. Act, and Rules for determining the age of juvenile.