Age Of Juvenile Mentioned In Aadhaar Card Not Material; Must Be Determined Strictly As Per S. 94 Of Juvenile Justice Act: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the age of Juvenile mentioned in Aadhaar Card is not material and the same must be determined strictly as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
The Gwalior Bench observed thus in a Criminal Revision filed against the Order of the Trial Court by which it remanded the case to the JMFC (Judicial Magistrate First Class) for conducting fresh enquiry to find out as to whether accused/child in conflict with law was below 18 years of age on the date of offence or not.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani enunciated, "... it is crystal clear that the age mentioned in Adhar card or Samgra Parivar Card or voter list is not material. The age of the revisionist is to be determined strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Section 94 of the Act of 2015, but the documents on record in this case raises a suspicion about its genuineness, therefore, a comprehensive enquiry is required."
Senior Advocate R.K. Sharma represented the Revisionist while Public Prosecutor Abhishek Bhadauria and Advocate Pradeep Katare represented the Respondents.
In this case, the accused/child in conflict-with-law was arrested by police in connection with a crime registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. After arrest, the accused was produced before the JMFC, Bhind, treating him to be major. Before the JMFC, an Application was preferred on behalf of the accused that he was below 18 years of age on the date of offence, therefore, his trial was to be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Trial Court conducted enquiry and vide Order came to the conclusion that on the date of offence, child in conflict-with-law was aged 17 years 6 months and 18 days and sent the case to JJB for hearing.
Against the said Order, Complainant and State filed separate Revision Applications before the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, on the ground that Order of the JMFC was not in accordance with law and proper enquiry was not conducted. The said Judge allowed the Revision Applications and remanded the case to the JMFC for conducting fresh enquiry. Hence, the Revision was preferred by the accused before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Now turning to facts of this case, the perusal of order of JMFC, Bhind, shows that he has simply after perusal of the mark-sheets of 5th , 8 th and 10 has assumed the age of the present revisionist as 02.07.2006 and accordingly found that he was, on the date of offence having age of 17 years 6 months and 18 days and discarded the scholar register of primary school mentioning the date of birth of present revisionist as 08.06.2005 on the ground that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.”
The Court added that such conclusion cannot be appreciated in the light of provisions contained in Section 9 and 94 of the JJ Act as well as other enabling provisions of the said Act and various pronouncements in this behalf.
“It was imperative for the JMFC, Bhind, to conduct an enquiry as contemplated in Section 94 of the Act of 2015 and provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the point as the documents filed on behalf of the parties are contradictory to each other and it raises suspicion about the genuineness of the documents", it said.
The Court emphasised that if the Magistrate reaches to a conclusion that two views are possible, then the said approach may be adopted but before conducting such enquiry, directly jumping to the conclusion cannot be said to be legal and valid.
“… the purpose of Adhar card is different. It cannot be resorted to/for determining the age of card holder. … Adhar card is not a proof of age of the prosecutrix. Her age is to be necessarily determined in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 or Section 94 of the Act of 2015”, it further reiterated.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision.
Cause Title- Child In Conflict With Law v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Anr.
