Jumping To Conclusions About Age Of 'Juvenile' Sans Inquiry Contemplated U/S 94 Of JJ Act Not Valid: MP High Court

The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a recent ruling has reiterated that while deciding the age of a child in conflict with law, a comprehensive inquiry as stipulated under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 must be done.

In doing so the court also underscored that a "hyper technical approach" should not be adopted while considering the evidence adduced in support of the contention that the individual is a juvenile.

Referring to various decisions including that of the Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2022), Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani in his order observed, “On perusal of the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid citations, it is clear that the court should direct an enquiry and verification of age of the accused, but a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. Though it is true that if two views are possible on the enquiry held in this regard, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases, but at the same time, it is also imperative for the court to ensure that the protection and privileges under the Act are not misused by unscrupulous persons to escape punishments for having committed serious offences.”

While deciding the issue in question, the Court observed, “After a comprehensive enquiry as contemplated in Section 94 of the Act of 2015 if the Magistrate reaches to a conclusion that two views are possible, then the said approach may be adopted but before conducting such enquiry directly jumping to the conclusion cannot be said to be legal and valid.”

Background

As per the facts of the case, the accused/child in conflict with-law was arrested for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. After arrest, the he was produced before the JMFC, Bhind, treating him to be major.

Before the JMFC, an application was filed on behalf of the accused/child in conflict-with-law that he was below 18 years of age on the date of offence, therefore, his trial is to be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board.

The trial Court conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that on the date of offence child in conflict-with-law was aged 17 years 6 months and 18 days and sent the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing.

Against this order, complainant and State filed separate revision applications before the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that order of the JMFC was not in accordance with law and no proper enquiry was done. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision applications and remanded the matter to the JMFC for conducting fresh enquiry. Hence, the present revision was preferred by the accused/child in conflict-with-law.

The counsel for the revisionist argued that there was no illegality impropriety and perversity in the order passed by the JMFC. He submitted that as per the mark-sheets of revisionist of Class 5th, 8th and 10th, the actual date of birth of the revisionist is 02.07.2006, and thus, the revisionist was below 18 years of age on the date of incident, and therefore, the order passed by the JMFC should not be interfered with. He also referred Section 94(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 and thereby, stating that the order of Additional Sessions Judge remanding the matter to the JMFC for fresh enquiry was liable to be set aside.

The counsel for the complainant and the State also supported the impugned order and submitted that the actual date of birth of the revisionist is 08.06.2005 which is recorded in the scholar register of the primary school and as per Section 94 of the Act of 2015 that is the document which is to be resorted for ascertaining the date of birth of the revisionist who is stated to be child-in-conflict with law. They also submitted other documents with regard to it.

Findings

To determine the issue at hand, the high court referred to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Procedure to be followed in determination of age) and Section 9 (Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under the Act) and Section 94 (Presumption and determination of age) of the Act of 2015.

The court observed that the JMFC simply perused the school mark sheets of the revisionist and assumed the date of birth as 02.07.2006 according to which the revisionist age on the date of offence was 17 years 6 months and 18 days. However, the JMFC discarded the scholar register of primary school mentioning the date of birth of present revisionist as June 8, 2005 stating that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.

“But such conclusion cannot be appreciated in the light of provisions contained in Section 9 and 94 of the Act of 2015 as well as other enabling provisions of the said Act and various pronouncements in this behalf. It was imperative for the JMFC, Bhind, to conduct an enquiry as contemplated in Section 94 of the Act of 2015 and provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the point as the documents filed on behalf of the parties are contradictory to each other and it raises suspicion about the genuineness of the documents,” the Court said.

The court said that various contradictory documents were filed on behalf of the revisionist and by the respondents which raises suspicion about the “genuineness” of the documents. “These documents probably were not before the JMFC, Bhind, therefore, let these documents be filed before the JMFC by both the parties and a comprehensive enquiry be conducted in the matter to determine the age of the revisionist keeping in view the provisions of the JJ Act and law rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.”, the Court said.

Thus, the court dismissed the present criminal revision and upheld the order of Additional Sessions Judge directing the JMFC to enquire into the matter afresh for determining the age of the revisionist.

Case Title: Child In Conflict With Law v/s Vinod Kumar Jain & Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order