XYZ versus ABHISHEIK & ANR

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 02-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
   [2022] 14 S.C.R. 420
420
XYZ
v.
ABHISHEIK & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1408-1409 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:
s.7A – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,
2007 – R.12(3)(b) – Plea of Juvenility – Appellant alleged that she
was subjected to gang rape by the first respondent and other persons
– FIR was registered on 24 July 2015, three to four months after the
commission of offences – Plea of Juvenility – JMFC found that the
matriculation certificate produced by the first respondent was
fabricated and therefore directed FIR to be filed against first
respondent for intentionally using fabricated documents in judicial
proceedings – Sessions Judge while conducting inquiry sought the
opinion of the District Medical Board and based on the same
concluded that the first respondent was not a juvenile on the date
of the incident – The first respondent filed revision petition before
High Court which was accepted – On appeal, held :During enquiry
the mother of the first respondent stated that the first respondent
had not studied beyond Class 9 and therefore did not appear for
matriculation examinations – The matriculation certificate was found
to be forged by the JMFC and in the absence of a matriculation
certificate, it was the birth certificate from the school first attended
which could have been relied upon – Director of school and also
relative of first respondent admitted that no document regarding
date of birth of the first accused was filed at the stage of admission
– The mother of the first respondent admitted in the cross-
examination that the date of birth in the scholar register is wrong –
In view of these circumstances, Sessions Judge was right in doubting
the credibility of birth certificate obtained from school – The birth
certificate issued by the Municipal Authority was not relied on by
Sessions Judge as the documents were improperly maintained by
the staff and were also found to be tampered – There is no valid
basis to discard the finding – It is evident from the report of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
medical board that first respondent was not a juvenile – The record
relied upon by the first respondent in support of the plea of juvenility
was fabricated – High Court erred in accepting the plea of juvenility
– Penal Code,1860 – ss. 193, 465, 466, 468, 471,363, 366A, 376,
506,120B – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012
– ss.3, 4.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. Rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules provides that
for the purposes of the ‘age determination enquiry’ of a child or
juvenile, evidence may be obtained by relying upon the following
documents: (i) matriculation or equivalent certificates; (ii) date
of birth certificate from school first attended; or (iii) birth
certificate given by corporation or municipal authority or
panchayat. At the end of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) the
rule uses the expression “and in the absence whereof”. In the
absence of any of the above three documents, medical opinion
could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board. [Para
19][430-C-D]
2. The mother of the first respondent categorically stated
during the course of the enquiry that the first respondent had not
studied beyond Class 9, and therefore did not appear for his
matriculation examinations. The first respondent’s counsel
submitted a matriculation certificate at the remand stage which
was found to be forged by the JMFC after inquiry. This was
specifically adverted to in the report of the 4th Additional Sessions
Judge. In the absence of a matriculation certificate, it was the
birth certificate from the school first attended which could have
been relied upon.The ‘scholar register’ produced by the school
mentions the date of birth of the first respondent as 30 June
1999. During the course of cross-examination, PW-4, who is the
Director of Guardian and Guide Public School, admitted that no
document regarding date of birth of the first accused was filed at
the stage of admission.The mother of the first respondent has
also admitted in the cross-examination that the date of birth in
the scholar register is wrong. Additionally, the occupation of the
first respondent’s father was initially mentioned as teacher, which
was later corrected to service. However, the mother of first
respondent has admitted during cro

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