Pappu Va.
Sonu & ANR. [2009] INSC 505 (6 March 2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 449
OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6505 of 2007) Pappu ....Appellant
Versus Sonu and Anr. ....Respondents
DR.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed a Revision Petition against the order
dated 10.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-I,
Mazaffarnagar. The petition filed by respondent No.1 claiming that he was a
juvenile was rejected. The respondent No.1 was facing trial in S.T. No.67/07.
During trial he moved the application marked 13Kha for declaring him as
juvenile pleading that his date of birth was 1.1.1989.
3.
In support of the claim he relied on various records as well as
the statements of his father and mother. Objections were filed by the State and
the informant stating that the applicant was a major on the date of occurrence
and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge did not rely on the educational records and the
statements of the mother as well as of the medical opinion. It was concluded
that the applicant was not juvenile. The High Court in the revision petition
accepted that the school records produced by the applicant were not reliable
and the statement of his mother also did not support his case. But solely on
the basis of a certificate issued by the doctor it was concluded that he was
below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and, therefore, in terms of
Rule 22(5) of Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2004 the applicant was to be treated as a juvenile.
4.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the informant
submitted that after taking the view that the educational records belied the
claim of the applicant and the mother's statement was also not accepted. Merely
on the basis of a certificate which does not even indicate the basis for
determination of the age, the High Court should not have held that respondent
No.1 was a juvenile.
5.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand supported
the order.
6.
Learned counsel for the State supported the stand taken by the
appellant, submitting that the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable.
7.
It is to be noted that the High Court found that the school
certificates produced clearly belied the claim of respondent No.1. The High
Court has categorically found that the various records relied upon by
respondent No.1 were not reliable. The trial Court and the High Court also held
that the mother's evidence was also not acceptable because it was based on
estimations. Strangely the High Court relied upon a certificate of a doctor 3
which did not even indicate the basis on which it was observed that the
radiology age of respondent No.1 was about 18 years.
8.
That being so, the abrupt conclusion of the High Court about the
age of respondent No.1 cannot be maintained. However, it is open to respondent
No.1 during trial to establish by cogent and credible evidence about his age
and his claim that he was a juvenile at the time when the occurrence took place.
9.
The appeal is allowed.
.........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J.
Back
