HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 91 of 2008
Revisionist :- Chheda Lal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subodh Kumar Shukla
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No.390 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.931 of 2005 under Sections 498A, Section304B IPC, 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act.
2. Learned Sessions Court after considering the High School certificate of respondent No.2 where his date of birth is mentioned as 20.07.1990 has found him to be juvenile on the date of incident i.e. 16.11.2005.
3. Under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the procedure has been prescribed to follow in determining the age of a person who claims to be juvenile in conflict with the law at the time of commission of alleged offence.
Rule 12(3) of the aforesaid rule reads as under:-
“(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining–
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available, and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat,
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of Clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the Clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, Clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.”
4. Thus, age mentioned in the matriculation or equivalent certificate has to be taken true and correct date of birth of the person claiming to be juvenile. Here, the accused age is mentioned as 20.07.1990 and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed the revisionist to be juvenile as on the date of incident his age would be 15 years, 3 months and 25 days.
5. Considering the aforesaid aspect, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court declaring respondent No.2 to be juvenile.
6. In view thereof, the present revision petition is dismissed.
7. Let trial Court record be returned forth with.
Order Date :- 11.11.2019