JYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASH v. STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 818

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, V.S. SIRPURKAR

Case summary

JYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASH v. STATE OF BIHAR.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 3 S. C. R. 818 ..... JYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASH • v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 440 of. 2008) MARCH 4, 2008 8 (S. B. SINHA AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ. ) "" ~ Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: s. 20 rlw s. 16 - Special provision in respect of pending cases - Determination of age of accused as on 1. 4. 2001 - Two medical boards constituted on different dates, opining the age of accused to be more than 18 years as on 1. 4. 2001 - Additional Sessions Judge and High Court holding age of accused to be above 18 yeas as on 1. 4. 2001 - HELD: No exception can be taken to such findings - Juvenile Justice nly the child offender will be sent before the Board. In light of the above mentioned facts there is no occasion to /! '. ~ abide by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is not applicable in the present case. " . . . ,#. 7. Before. the High Court, It was Inter alla rightly contended that the decision of this Court In Amit Das v.

State of Blhar [(2000) 5 sec 466] which had laid down the law that the age of the juvenile should be determined as on the date of his production . before the Court and not on the date of commission of offence has been overruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court In Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2005) 3 sec 551]. In the Impugned judgment, the High Court held: "7. According to the submission of learned Advocate of the petitioner, tho first medical board was constituted on 24. 4. 2001 and on that date and board was of the opinion that the petitioner was aged between 16·19 years. He submitted that If the age of the petitioner Is taken as 16 years on 24. 4. 2001 then on 1. 4. 2001, he was definitely below 16 years [I. e. 23 days less In 16 years]. Likewise, 0 the aecond medical board was constituted on 29. 6. 2001 and on that date also the board ~sseissed his age as 16· 19 years and, therefore, Ifthe minimum age of the petitioner lis taken 1111 1ayears on 29. 6.

2001, the net result will be that the petitioner was le118 then 16 yeors on 1. 4. 2001 I. e. [two months twenty eight days lellll In attelnlng eighteen . years]. . B. I am of tho view that this will not bo tho proper way of eomputln9 tho a11e of petltlonor and tho proper way to . r . 11:11rn1111 the ase of the petitioner will be that hl11119e 11hould be fixed In between 16=19 ye1m1 on the dote of examination, 11ecordin9 to which the 119e of the petitioner comea to 1B ye11r11 I> month11 ad11y11 on 1. 4. :! 001 when h@ for the fir11t "'· tim11 11ppe11rnd b11for@ th@ m11dic11I boord cm :! IHUW01. . . lhus, th@ net msult i11 th11t cm 1. 4,:! 001 th@ p@titicin@r w1111 definil@ly 11b1w11 . 1 By1i11r11 of 1111@ 11nd mit b@ll'lw 1ll y1111r11 of iilQ@," · · . ll Mr. N119@ndr11· R11i, l1i11rn1id 11@nior coun11@l 11pp@11rin9 on b1ih11lf gf th@ 11pp@ll11nt, would 11ubmiUh11t th@ C::l'lYrtl! b@ll'lw · eommitt@d 1111@riou11 ill@9111ity in11gf11r 1111 they f11il11d to tak@ into STATE OF BIHAR [S. 8.

SINHA, J. ) consideration that on 12. 05. 2000, the age of the appellant having been determined to be 17 years, Inevitably his age as on 1. 04. 2001 would be less than 18 years. It was furthermore submitted that Amit Das (supra) being no longer a good law, the learned Trial Judge should have proceeded to determine the Issue keeping In view the minimum age determined by the · Medical Board. Reliance In this behalf has been placed on an unreported decision of this Court In Bihar State E/ectr/clty Board· v. Blhar Power Workers Union & Ors [Clvll Appeal No. 420 of 2001 decided on 6. 03. 2002] wherein It has been held: "The High Court Is of the view that age determined by the Medical Board cannot be accurate and, therefore, It finds that It would be appropriate to extend the benefit of the lesser age determined by the Medical Board. We do not think that that view of the High Court should be upset.

The view of the appellant-Board that It should be only average 0 • I, of the ~axlmum and minimum age, cannot be quite · accurate, If In fact, tha employee Is of the lesser age as determined by the Medical Board. In that view, the policy. adopted by the appellant - Board cannot be stated to be . without any fault. In that view of the matter, the Interference by the High Court Is justified, In the circumstances of the c1111e. The 11ppeal Is therefore dismissed. " 9. The 2000 Act Is Indisputably a beneficial leglslatlon. Prlnclple:i of beneficial leQlslation, however, ~ · • had crossed 16 years or the girl had crossed 18 y~ars.

This shows that Section 20 refers to cases where a p~son had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has not been passed and ifthe court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and· instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, shall ... forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile. " It was furthermore observed: "36 . We, therefore, hold that the provisions of the 2000 Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and c- ~ pending·trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the ~ 1986 Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1-4-2001. " It was concluded: "37. The net result is: ( b ) The 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 ....

\ Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1-4-2001. " 14. Reliance placed by Mr. Rai on the unreported decision in Bihar State Electricity Board (supra) is misplaced. Therein a policy decision had been taken. The correctness of the said policy decision was in question having regard to the determination of the age by a medical board. The High Court ~ .. was of the view that the age determined by the medical board cannot be accurate. It was, therefore, not a case where any law was laid down. ' 15. The court has to determine the age keeping in view a large number of factors. It is in that context it was opined in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [1988 Supp SCC 604): "To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on . , ...

must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; secondly, it must be an entry stating a fad in issue STATE OF BIHAR [S. S. SINHA, J. ] or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant iri discharge of his official duty, or any other person ' in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school r~ister . .. , is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. " 16: In Sushi/ Kumarv. Rakesh Kumar[(2003) 8 SCC 673], this Court observed: "32 . The age of a person in an election petition has to be ' determined not only on the basis of the materials placed · on record but also upon taking into consideration the circumstances attending thereto.

The initial burden to prove the allegations made in the election petition although was upon the election petitioner but for proving the facts which were. within the special knowledge of the respondent, the burden was upon him in terms of ... " 17. In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U. P [(2006) 5 sec 584], it was held:- "21. Determination of the date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Such a date of birth has to be determined on the basis of the materials on records. It will be a matter of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Different standards having regard to the provision of Section 35 of the Evidence Act cannot ·be applied in a civil case or a criminal case. " · It was furthermore held :- "38.

The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for .. ;f . ;.. contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a .. separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e. g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by aguardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a ,. minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the .. ,. age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard.

No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar t offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the .. r Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be. _ \ convicted. 39. We are, therefore, of the opinion that until the age of a person is required to be determined in a manner laid down under a statute, different standard of proof should· not be adopted. It is no doubt true that the court must strike a balance. In case of a dispute, the court may appreciate the evidence having regard to the facts and . <! ~ circumstances of the case. It would be a duty of the court of law to accord the benefit to a juvenile, provided he is one. To give the same benefit to a person who in fact is • .

not a. juvenile may cause injustice to the victim. In this ·case, the appellant had never been serious in projecting his plea that he on the date of commission of the offence was a minor. He made such statement for the first time . ;, . while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -f ~ 40. The family background of the appellant is also a relevant fact. His father was a "Pradhan" of the village. He . ~ ~ was found to be in possession of an unlicensed firearm. He was all along represented by a lawyer. The court estimated his age to be 18 years. He was tried jointly with the other accused. He had been treated alike with the other accused. On merit of the matter also the appellant stands on the same footing as the other accused. The prosecution has proved its case. In fact no such plea coμld ..

~ be raised as the special leave petition of the persons " similarly situated was dismissed when the Court issued notice having regard to the contention raised by him for the first time that he was a minor on the date of occurrence. " 18. In Jitendra Ram v. State of Jharkhand [(2006) 9 SCC 428], this Court stated : "20. We are, however, not oblivious of the decision of this Court in Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar wherein. an " r obligation has been cast on the court that where such plea is raised having regard to the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, the same should be examined with great care. We are, however, of the opinion that the same would not mean that a pe·rson who is not entitled to the benefit of the said Act would be dealt with leniently only because such a plea is raised. Each plea must be judgea on its own merit. Each case has to be considered on the ... . '. \ basis of the materials brought on records. " It was held: ~ "22.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the determination of the age of the appellant as on the date of tfle commission of the offence should be done afresh by the learned Sessions Judge. " 19. Appellant herein had produced a large number of documents to prove his age purported to be as on the date of ,.. +commission of the crime. The genuineness of the school certificate and the horoscope had been questioned. The school certificate produced by the appellant was found to be forged / and fabricated and as a matter of fact a criminal case was "' directed to be instituted against the Head of the Institution. ~ 20. The court, therefore, had no other option but to determine the age on the basis of the Medical Reports. Both the medical reports dated 24. 04. 2001 and 29. 06. 2001 opined 8 the age of the appellant between 18 and 19 years.

In terms of first medical report, the age of the appellant came to be 18 years 5 months 8 days and in terms of the second medical report, it came to be between 18 and 19 years. The High Court opined that the appellant on 1. 04. 2001 was definitely above 18 years of age and not below 18 years of age. 21. The courts have considered this aspect of the matter on earlier occasions also. If, thus, on the basis of several factors including the fact that school leaving certificate and the horoscope produced by the appellant were found to be forged and fabricated and having regard to two medical reports the courts \ .. ' below have found the age of the appellant as on 1. 04. 2001 to be above 18 years, we are of the opinion that no exception thereto can be taken. 22. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. R. P. Appeal dismissed.