RAM SURESH SINGH versus PRABHAT SINGH @ CHHOTU SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 451 
' 
'1 
RAM SURESH SINGH 
A 
V. 
PRABHAT SINGH @ CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. 
Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2009 
MAY 05, 2009 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
~ 
i 
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECT/ON OF 
CHILDREN) RULES, 2001: 
r 22 - Determination of age - Held: Opinion of Medical 
Board is to be preferred only when the date of birth certificate c 
from the school first attended is not available - On facts, entry 
in the school register having been proved, High Court rightly 
accepted the same and held the offender as a juvenile -
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
D 
s.6- Evidence Act, 1872- s.35. 
Respondent No.1 was accused of having committed 
an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. He raised a plea that 
he was a juvenile. He produced entries in the school 
admission register. However, the Magistrate concerned E 
appointed a Medical Board and on the basis of its report 
held that respondent no.1 was aged more than 20 years 
on the date of occurrence. On revision, the High Court 
relying upon the evidence regarding entries in the school 
register held the offender as a juvenile. Aggrieved, the 
complainant filed the appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Rule 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 provides for the 
procedure to be followed in respect of determination of G 
,,\ 
the age of a person. It indicates that the opinion of the 
Medical Board is to be preferred only when a date of birth 
certificate from the school first attended is not available. 
Even if the medical report is to be considered, it is now 
451 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A well known that an error of two years in determining the 
age is possible. However, the medical opinion rendered 
in the instant case corroborates the entry made in the 
register. Admission register of the school having been 
proved in accordance with law, there is no reason as to 
B why the same should not be taken into consideration. 
[Para 14, 17-18] [459-D,G ; 460-G-H] 
1.2 An entry in a school register may not be a public 
document and, thus, must be proved in accordance with 
C law but, in the instant case, the said entry has been proved. 
The documents produced by respondent no.1 were not 
found to be forged, fabricated or otherwise inadmissible 
in law. If a document is proved to be genuine and satisfies 
the requirements of law, it should be, subject to just 
exceptions, relied upon. [Para 16 and 19] [459-F; 461-C] 
D 
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit 1988 (Supp.) SCC 
604; Raja Janaki Nath Roy v. Jyotish Chandra Acharya 
Chowdhury AIR 1941 Cal. 41; Vimal Chadha v. Vikas 
ChoudhDfY & Anr. 2008 (8) SCALE 608; Pratap Singh v. State 
E of Jharkhand & Anr.(2005) 3 SCC 551 - referred to 
2.1 The condition laid down in s. 35 of the Evidence 
Act for proving an entry pertaining to the age of a student 
in a school admission register is to be considered for the 
purpose of determining the relevance thereof. But in the 
F instant case, the said condition must be held to have been 
satisfied. There cannot furthermore be any doubt 
whatsoever that same standard is required to be applied 
for the purpose of s.35 of the Evidence Act both in civil as 
also criminal proceedings. (Para 15 and 18] (459-E; 
G 460-B] 
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 585 
and Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu 
and Kashmir & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1297 = (1982) 2 SCC 202-
H relied on 
1' 
• 
'r 
,.. 
RAM SURESH SINGH V. PRABHAT SINGH @ 
453 
CHHOTU SINGH & ANR. 
Jyoti Prakash Rai@ Jyoti Prakash v. State of Bihar 2008 
A 
(3) SCALE 348 - referred to 
3. As the date of birth entered in the school register 
has been proved, there is no reason as to why the same 
should not be given effect to. There is no infirmity in the 
order passed by the High Court. [Para 22 and 23] [462-D] 
8 
... 
1 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 909 of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 17.05.2006 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Revision c 
No. 752 of 2005 
Praneet Ranjan, Ajay Amritraj, for the Appellant. 
Sishir Pinaki, Kumar Ranjan, Alok Kumar, Manish Kumar, 
Gopal Singh, for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. Respondent no.1 is facing trial in Nava Nagar P.S. Case 
... 
No.102 of 2003 on the charge of committing murder of one 
Tribhuvan Singh. Appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.