JABAR SINGH versus DINESH & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 12-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 353 
JABAR SINGH 
v. 
DINESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2010) 
MARCH 12, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDl AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF 
CHILDREN) ACT, 2000: 
A 
B 
c 
s. 49 - Juvenile - Determination of age - Jurisdiction of 
competent authority and trial court - Application rejected by 
trial court - High Court allowing the application and remitting 
the matter to trial court for trial of applicant in accordance with 
the provisions of the Ast, treating him to be a juvenile on the o 
date of commission of offence - HELD: Section 49 is attracted 
when a person is brought before the competent authority, 
namely,. the Juvenile Justice Board and not otherwise - Jn the 
instant case, applicant was not brought before the competent 
authority and, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to make inquiry E 
as to the age of the applicant as provided uls 49(1) - The 
applicant was facing trial before the Court of Session when he 
filed the application claiming juvenility and it was, therefore, 
for the trial court to decide upon his claim - Section 49 
contains no provision prohibiting the court before which a claim F 
of juvenility is raised to determine the age of the claimant -
Trial court, therefore, had jurisdiction to inquire into the age 
of the applicant -
Trial court after taking into (he material 
produced and the evidence adduced rightly rejected the claim 
of the applicant that he was juvenile at the time of commission 
of the offence - Section 7-A and r.12 laying down the G 
procedure to be followed in the case of claim for juvenility had 
not come into force on 14.2.2006, the 'date of the order of the 
trial court and, therefore, the trial court was not required to 
fonow the procedure laid down in s. 7-A of the Act or r. 12 of the 
353 
H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Rules - In the absence of any statutory provision laying down 
the procedure to be followed in determining a claim of 
juvenility raised before it, the court had to decide the claim 
of juvenility of the appellant on the materials or evidence 
brought on record by the parties and s.35 of the Evidence Act 
8 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 
2007 - r.12 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.35. · 
[para 7-9] 
s. 53 - Revisiona/ jurisdiction of High Court - Order of 
trial court rejecting the claim of applicant that he was a 
C juvenile on the date of commission of the offence - Set aside 
by High Court - HELD: The age of applicant was a question · 
of fact, which was to be decided on the evidence brought on 
record before the court - Trial court arrived at the finding that 
the claim of the applicant that he was less than 18 years at . 
D the time of commission of the alleged offence, was not 
·believable~ While arriving at this finding of fact, the trial court 
had not only considered the evidence produced by the 
applicant but also considered the fact that either in the earlier 
cases or during the investigation of the instant case, the 
E applicant had not raised this _plea - Trial court had also 
considered the physical appearance of the ·applicant - Such 
determination on a question of fact could not be disturbed by 
the High Court in exercise of its revisional powers - While 
exercising revisional powers, High Court cannot convert itself 
F 
to an appellate court and reverse the findings of fact arrived 
at by the trial court on_Jhe basis o( evidence or material on 
record, except where the High Court is not satisfied as to the 
legality or propriety of the orCJe( passed by the trial court - The 
trial court, --in the instant cciS'e, has given good reasons for 
G discarding the evidence adduced by the applicant in support 
of his claim that he was a juvenile at the time of commission 
of the alleged offence and there was no scope to hold that the 
order of the trial court was either illegal or improper, and the 
High Court should not have substituted its own finding for that 
H of the trial court by re-appreciating the evidence - The order 
JABAR SINGH v. DINESH & ANR. 
355 
the trial court for trial of applicant in accordance with law A 
treating him not to be a juvenile at the time of the commission 
of the alleged offence - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 35. [para 12-
14] 
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: 
B 
s .. 35 - Relevancy of entry in public record - Applicant 
claiming before trial court to be a juvenile -
Evidence 
regarding date of birth - HELD: The entry of date of birth 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.