LexJYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASH versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 818 I' ..... A JYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASH • v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 440 of.2008) 8 MARCH 4, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) "" Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, ~ 2000: c 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 D accused to be above 18 yeas as on 1.4.2001 - HELD: No exception can be taken to such findings - Juvenile Justice ' <:~I Act, 1986. Evidence Act, 1872: E s. 35 - Relevancy of entry in public record - Determination of age - Relevant factors to be taken into account - Accused producing large number of documents to prove his age - School certificates produced found to be forged and fabricated - Criminal case directed to be instituted against <· F Head of Institution - Effect of - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable uls 302 IPC, as he was stated to hav.e killed his schoolmate by stabbing him several times on G 12.5.2000. The Magistrate estimated his age to be about 17 years on the said date. On coming into force of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001, in order to consider the claim that the 1" • appellant was a juv-enile, tlNo medical boards were H 818 JYOTI PRAKASH RAI @ JYOTI PRAKASH v. 819 STATE OF BIHAR ' ' constituted. The first Board, which examined the appellant A " on 24.4.2001 opi~d his age to be 18 years 5 months and 8 days and the second medical board constituted on 29.6.2001, also opined his age between 18-19 years. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the appellant was above 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001. The High Court B affirmed the order. r' -.. In the instant appeal it was contended for the '· appellant that both the courts below failed to take into consideration that on 12.5.2000, the date of commission of offence, age of the appellant had been determined to c be 17 years and thus on 1.4.2001, he was below 18 years. Dismissing the appeal, th-: Court HELD: 1.1 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is indisputably a beneficial D .. ( legislation. Principles of beneficial legislation, however, are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of the statute and not for arriving at a conclusion as to whether a person is juvenile or not. Whether an offender was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence E or not is essentially a question of fact which is required to be determined on the basis of the material brought on record by the parties. In the absence of any evidence ~ ). which is relevant for the purpose as envisaged under section 35 of the Evidence Act, the same must be F determined keeping in view the factual matrix involved in each case. For the said purpose, not only relevant materials are required to be considered, the orders passed by the court on earlier occasions would also be relevant. [para 9] [825-E-H; 826-A] G 1.2 The court has to determine the age keeping in view a large number of factors. A medical report , \,._ determining the age of a. person has never been considered by the courts of law as also by the medical scientists to be conclusive in nature. After certarn age it is H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3·S.C.R. # A difficult to determine the exact age of the person ..... concerned on the basis of ossification test or other tests. • [para 10,15) [828-F; 826-A, B] ·~ Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra [2006) 1 SCC 283; Birad B Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit [1988) Supp. SCC 604; Sushi/ Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar [2003) 8 SCC 673; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P [2006) 5 SCC 584; and Jitendra Ram "~ vs. State of Jharkhand [2006) 9 SCC 428 - relied on. • ,, 1.3 In a case of this nature, where the delinquent was c examined by two different medical boards on two different dates and both having reached two different conclusions, a greater difficulty arises for the court to arrive at a correct decision. For the said purpose, the court may resort to some sort of hypothesis, as no premise is available on D the basis whereof a definitive conclusion can be arrived at. In the facts and cir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.