MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 15-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 279
279
MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARY
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
– s.94(2)(ii) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007 – r.12(3) – U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – U.P.
Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 –
Appellant-accused was declared as juvenile in conflict with law by
Additional Sessions Judge – Order set aside by High Court, appellant
ordered to stand trial as an adult – On appeal, held: Plea of juvenility
has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner – To seek juvenility,
if the reliance is on a document which is not reliable or is dubious
in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in
view that the Act is a beneficial legislation – The provisions of the
statute are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be
granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with
untruthful statement – Appellant approached the Court with unclean
hands as the documents relied upon by him are not genuine and
trustworthy, and thus cannot be given benefit of juvenility – View
taken by High Court is a possible view in law and does not call for
any interference.
Juvenile Justice – Determination of Juvenility – Ossification
Test – Held: Ossification test varies based on individual
characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each
case – It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform
standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on
account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other
factors affecting the people of the different States of India.
Juvenile Justice – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 – U.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – s.110 – U.P.
Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 –
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 –
r.12(3) – Family register – Evidentiary value of – Held: How much
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register is a question
of fact, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the
correct enunciation of law – The register is maintained in accordance
with the rules framed under a statute – Entries made in the regular
course of the affairs of the Panchayat would thus be relevant but
the extent of such reliance would be in view of the peculiar facts
and circumstances of each case – Further, in terms of r.12(3)(iii) of
the Rules, birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal
authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the
juvenility – Family register is not a birth certificate – Therefore, it
would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of r.12(3) – Even s.94(2)(ii)
of the 2015 Act contemplates a birth certificate issued by a panchayat
to determine the age.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 stands repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The procedure for
determining the age is now part of Section 94 of 2015 Act which
was earlier provided under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (the Rules). The
appellant relies upon three documents such as a Birth Certificate;
School leaving Certificate and the Report of the Ossification Test
in support of his plea of being a juvenile, whereas the State relies
upon the family register prescribed by the Family Register Rules.
[Paras 5 and 6][287-F-H; 288-A-B]
2. In the birth certificate issued by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, the date of birth is mentioned as 13.05.1993. Such date
of birth was registered on 19.11.2014 after the filing of the
application under Section 7A of the Act on 7.10.2014. Such date
of birth certificate has been arranged to claim benefit under the
2000 Act. The date of birth certificate produced by the appellant
cannot be relied upon as it was obtained after filing of the
application under Section 7A of the Act on 7.10.2014. As per the
birth certificate, the appellant was born at house. Therefore, in
terms of Section 8(1)(a) and 10(1)(i) of the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969, birth had to be reported to the Registrar
by the head of the household or by the nearest relative of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281

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