PARAG BHATI (JUVENILE) THR. LEGAL GUARDIAN- MOTHER-SMT. RAJNI BHAT! versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 12-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. I 089 
PARAG BHAT! (JUVENILE) THR. LEGAL GUARDIAN-
A 
MOTHER-SMT. RAJNI BHAT! 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 486 of2016) 
MAY12,2016 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: 
s. 7 A - Juvenility of the accused on the date of occurrence -
Determination of - Date of birth mentioned in the matriculation 
certificate doubtful, direction by the Medical Board for conducting 
ossification test of accused and the Board holding that appellant is· 
a major - Correctness of - Held: If the Board comes to the 
conclusion that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation 
certificate raises some doubt on the basis of material or evidence 
on record, it can seek medical opinion from a duly constituted 
medical board to determine the age of the accused person claiming 
juvenility - On facts, discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in 
school certificate - Transfer certificate issued by the Junior High 
School found to be forged - As such the medical of the appellant 
was conducted by the Medical Board wherein his age was assessed 
about 19 years and he was ordered to be tried by the Session Court 
- Board rightly did not give the benefit of one year to the appellant 
under the Rules - Since there was doubt on the correctness of the 
date of birth, an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused 
was done - Thus, no illegality in the orders passed by the Board 
and the Courts below - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 
2007 - r. 12. 
Principal of benevolent legislation - Brnejit of - When - Held: 
Benefit would apply to only such cases wherein the accused is held 
to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence 
regarding his minority - Benefit of the possibilities of two views 
cannoi be given to the accused involved in grave and serious offence 
committed in a planned manner - Courts cannot adopt a casual or 
cavalier approach while recording whether an accused is a juvenile 
or not - Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the 
1089 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution 
entrusted with the administration of justice. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Conrt 
HELD: 1.1 It is clear that under Section 7A of the Jnvenile 
Justice Act, the conrt is enjoined to make an inquiry and take 
snch evidence as may be necessary· to determine the age of the 
person who claims to be a juvenile. However, under Rule 12 of 
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection} Rules, 2007, the Board 
is enjoined to take evidence by obtaining the matricnlation 
certificate if available, and in its absence, the date of birth 
certificate from the school first attended and if it is also not 
available then the birth certificate given by the local body. In 
case any of the above certificates are not available then medical 
opinion can be resorted to. However, if the Board comes to the 
conclusion that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation 
certificate raises some doubt on the basis of material or evidence 
on record,Jt can seek medical opinion from a dnly constituted 
medical board to determine the age of the accused person 
claiming jnvenility. [Para 16) [1101-C-E] 
1.2 From the documents on record, it is seen that the date 
of birth of the appellant-accnsed is 13.09.1995 in the records of 
the High School and 17.09.1994 is mentioned in the records of 
Kisan Vaidik Junior High School. If the date of birth mentioned 
in such certificate is proved wrong then it cannot be relied upon. 
A~ the date of birth which is alleged to have been recorded in 
Saint Joseph School is on the basis of the transfer certificate 
issued by the Kisan Vaidik J nnior High School and such transfer 
certificate has been found to be forged, therefore,· the Board. came 
to the conclnsion that the date of birth mentioned in the certificate 
issned by the Secondary School Examination mentioning it as 
13.09.1995 on the basis of Vishwa Bharti Pnblic School, Greater 
Noida cannot be believed. Fnrther, the date of birth which was 
recorded in Vishwa Bharti Public School was on the ba~is of the 
date of birth recorded in Saint Joseph School and the date of 
birth recorded in the Saint Joseph School had been found to be 
without having any basis. On 30.08.2011, the Board, on merits, 
conducted proceedings to register case

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