In this post we will discuss about the recent judgment of the Panjab and Haryana High Court on the determination of the age of a juvenile.
Judgement Digest: Gajab Singh v. State of Haryana
This report looks into the recent judgement of the Panjab and Haryana High Court on the determination of the age of a juvenile. In the case of Gajab Singh v. State of Haryana, the precedence of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 over Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 was discussed. The prime contention here is the method of ascertaining the age of a person and the value placed on different documents under the Juvenile Act vis-a-vis the Juvenile Rules.
The judgement can be read at Gajab Singh vs State Of Haryana.[1]
Facts of the Case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-767-2018
Date of Decision: February 20, 2019
Gajab Singh …Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
The present petition was filed challenging the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, dismissing an appeal against the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, whereby the application of the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile was rejected. The petitioner is involved in a case arising from FIR No.78, dated 15.03.2017, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 506, 452 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, Faridabad. To avoid full rigour of criminal law, the petitioner had filed an application for declaring him as a juvenile claiming that he was less than 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence. Hence, he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The application filed by the petitioner was adjudicated upon by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, and it was held that the date of birth of the petitioner is to be taken as 07.08.1996. Hence, as on the date of occurrence, the petitioner’s age comes to be more than 18 years. Therefore, the petitioner was not juvenile. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. However, the lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, it was ordered that the petitioner would be taken as an adult and not a juvenile.
This appeal merely seeks to adjudge the age of the petitioner for the matter of criminal trial, and not whether he is guilty under the sections mentioned in the above plaint, which is the question of another case.
ALSO READ- JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
Issues of the case
- Whether the petitioner was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence?
- Whether the matriculation certificate holds primacy over other documents as per the provisions of Juvenile Rules, 2007 in the light of Juvenile Act, 2015?
- Were the decisions issued by the Judicial Magistrate and the Lower Court thus illegal?
Case Laws Cited
Siba Bisoyi vs. State of Odisha[2]
Lok Nath Pandey vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another[3]
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of M.P.[4]
Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian-Mother-Smt. Rajni Bhati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another[5]
Vikram Singh vs. State of Haryana[6]
Findings of the Court
The main issue of the case was the petitioner’s grievance against the earlier decisions where he was not declared a minor, which would attract lesser punishment under the criminal charges against him. He was being tried under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act for serious wrongdoings, including possession of prohibited ammunition, rioting, and attempt to murder, the term for which can go up to ten years in jail. The petitioner’s age was a crucial factor for prosecution.
Based on the documents submitted as evidence, the following timeline of the birth record of the petitioner as per school records was ascertained:
| Name of the School | Year of Admission | Admitted to Standard | Date of Birth in School Records |
| Government Primary School, Mujedi | 2002 | Class 1 | 07.08.1996 |
| Sai Senior Secondary School, Faridabad | 2008 | Class 1 | 26.08.2003 |
| Gangotri Modern Senior Secondary School, Ballabhgarh | 2014 | Class 9 | 23.07.1999 |
| Jai Bharat School | 2015 | Class 10 | 23.07.1999 |
The petitioner was first admitted to Government Primary School, where the first date of birth was on the record. However, his name was struck off from this school because of his continuous absence. There is a gap in his schooling, after which he takes re-admission in class 1 in 2008 in Sai Senior School, where the date of birth first changes – a fact deposed by a clerk from the school as well. He studied here up till standard 8, after which he changed schools to Gangotri Senior School in standard 9 the basis of school leaving certificate issued by Sai School. Now, the date changes for a second time. Again, he transferred to Jai Bharat School in standard 10 with no changes based on the leaving certificate issued by Gangotri School. It was here he passed class 10 and, therefore, the date which appears on his matriculation certificate is 23.07.1999.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Rules, 2007 prescribes the procedure followed for determination of age, where the accused claims to be juvenile. As per Rule 12(3)(a), supremacy was to be given to matriculation certificate and, only on its absence were other documents to be considered. In the instant case, the matriculation certificate was available, and the others were excluded, per se, from consideration. Accordingly, the petitioner is a juvenile and, in another case, is being tried as such.
The state counsel argued that the Juvenile Act, having superseded the Rules, contains a provision according to which the matriculation certificate no more enjoys the place of primacy. The evidentiary value of matriculation certificate and the date of birth certificate from the school is at par. It is left to the Court to assess the age of the person brought before it. Further, Section 94(3) of the Act makes the age determined by the Committee/Court/Board as the true age of the person for the trial.
The court dismissed the plea, stating that the Courts below have committed no illegality by giving more value to the date of birth recorded in the Government Primary School. It also agreed that the provision of the Juvenile Act, 2015 supersedes that of Juvenile Rules, 2007, which now governs the procedure for the determination of the age of the accused.
ALSO READ- GAP IN JUVENILE LAW?
The judgements cited above were not examined by the court because each of these involved offences committed before the Juvenile Act, 2015 came into force. The scope of Section 94 was not under consideration in any of these. Hence there was no relevance to this case.
The disparity in the change of date of birth the second time was explained through 8th pass certificate issued by Sai School with the date of birth 23.07.1999, causing Gangotri School recording this date as the D.O.B. of the petitioner. This creates a dispute too. Having started standard 1 in 2008 in the former school, he should have passed standard 8 in 2016. He has however taken admission in standard 9 in 2014. This reveals the manipulation in the records of Sai School for admitting into Gangotri School.
“ It is clear that the date of birth was deliberately changed by Sai Senior Secondary School and the petitioner was given 8th pass certificate with a different date of birth; against the record of that school itself, by changing the date of birth from 26.8.2003 to 27.3.1999”, the court stated.
Since the matriculation certificate was issued consistent with the records of Jai Bharat School and in turn, Gangotri School, both of which were based on the manipulated records of Sai School, it cannot be taken to be a reliable proof of petitioner’s D.O.B. for the purpose of the trial. The only date which was undisputed was that of Government School, after which the dates have not appeared to be commensurate with the age of the petitioner.
Moreover, the Act also prescribes that the age recorded by the committee or board under its provisions should be deemed the true age of the person brought before it. The High court – although currently in concurrence – if were to dissent with the lower courts, it would not replace its opinion for its decision. When the Judicial Magistrate decreed that the petitioner was not a juvenile, it will be regarded as such because the Court of the first instance is the final adjudicator under the Act.
The fact that he was being tried as a juvenile in another case is not a relevant factor in this one because nothing therein establishes that his age has been determined following the procedure of inquiry as prescribed under the Act.
ALSO READ- PUNISHMENT UNDER JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
Conclusion
This judgement has put Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 over Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determining the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile. The petitioner was not declared to be minor, because the one proof which corroborates this was found to be unreliable. The matriculation certificate no longer holds exclusive primacy. The Act grants some discretionary power to the courts in this regard, along with the ability to give the final judicial decision.
This post is written by Jigyasa Kharbanda.
For case specific advice related to Juvenile Justice Act, you may contact top/best/expert Criminal Lawyer in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali.
For more info, dial 99888-17966.
[1] 2019 (2) JCC 1570 also accessible at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113499770/
[2] 2017(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 409 also access at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90301943/
[3] 2017 AIR (SC) 3866 also access at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126225593/
[4] 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 391 also access at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57506863/
[5] 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1031 also access at https://www.legitquest.com/case/parag-bhati-juvenile-thrgh-legal-guardian-mother-smt-rajni-bhati-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-another/9b1ca
[6] 2017(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 301 also access at https://www.legitquest.com/case/vikram-singh-v-state-of-haryana/183B9F
