IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.975 of 2011
Rakesh Singh, son of Chaturbhuj Singh, resident of village-Bhoraha,
P.S.-Belsand, District- Sitamarhi.
Versus
The State Of Bihar .
-----------
2. 17.08.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this
revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.VII, Sitamarhi by which
the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Sitamarhi in Trial No.643/10 has been
affirmed and thereby the claim of the petitioner to be a
juvenile has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that on 25.10.2009, the alleged date of occurrence, the
petitioner was a juvenile as his date of birth recorded in
the admission register of class VIII is 4.07.1994. This
admission register has been marked as Exhibit-1. He also
submits that according to the medical board report, the age
of the petitioner is about 19 years as on 1.07,2010, the date
2
of examination of the petitioner by the medical board and
thereby the age of the petitioner comes to 17 years on the
date of occurrence. But, the learned Juvenile Justice Board
has not considered this fact and has relied upon the school
admission register of the petitioner first attended in his
village, which has been marked as Exhibit-2. According to
which, the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.04.1991 in the
admission register of class-I on 1.05.1997. The medical
report has been called for by the Juvenile Justice Board, as
such, the medical report should have been relied upon by
the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the appellate
court.
The learned counsel for the State has
submitted that there is Rule for the consideration of the
age of a person claiming to be a juvenile and the report of
the medical board can only be considered, if the school
certificate and the date of birth recorded in the school first
attended are not available. The impugned order has been
passed in accordance with law and no interference by this
Court is required.
After hearing the learned counsels for both the
parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it
3
appears that the matter of juvenility has been considered
by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the appellate
court. In pursuance to the provisions contained in Sub-
section (I) of Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) the Central
Government has framed the rules called Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and it has
come into force w.e.f.26.10.2007 published in the Gazette
of India. According to the Rule 12 (3), guidelines have
been given to the Court or the Board, as the case may be,
for determination of age concerning a child or a juvenile.
According to the Rule 12(3) (a), the Court or Board or the
Committee has to consider the evidence by obtaining (i)
Matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in
the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from
the school (other than a play school) first attended and in
absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a
Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat; (b)
and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause
(a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly
constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of
the juvenile or child. In this case, the petitioner has
4
submitted the admission register of class-VIII showing
that his date of birth is 4.07.1994 (Exhibit-1). On the other
hand, the informant has produced the school admission
register of the petitioner of class I, first attended school of
Utkramit Madhya Vidhalaya (Exhibit-2) showing the date
of birth of the petitioner as 5.04.1991 in the admission
register of class I on 1.05.1997. The date of birth shown in
class I, the first attended school has rightly been
considered by both the court below and has found that the
petitioner is not a juvenile and he has been declared a
major above the age of 18 years as the date of occurrence
is 25.10.2009.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)