9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (5) TMI 1040 - SC - Indian LawsWhich date the age of the petitioner is required to be determined for finding out whether he is a juvenile or not? Whether the finding as to age as arrived at by the Courts below and maintained by the High Court can be sustained? Held that - Appeal dismissed. We are clear in our mind that the crucial date for determining the question whether a person is juvenile is the date when he is brought before the competent authority. So far as the finding regarding the age of the appellant is concerned it is based on appreciation of evidence and arrived at after taking into consideration of the material available on record and valid reasons having been assigned for it. The finding arrived at by the learned A.C.J.M. has been maintained by the Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision. No case having been made out for interfering therewith.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the relevant date for assessing the age of the petitioner to ascertain juvenile status. 2. Validity of the age determination findings by the lower courts and the High Court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the Relevant Date for Assessing Age: The court examined whether the age of the petitioner should be determined based on the date of the offence or the date when the petitioner was brought before the competent authority. The petitioner claimed juvenile status under The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, asserting he was born on 18.9.1982, making him under 16 years old at the time of the offence on 5.9.1998. The prosecution disputed this claim, and the court had to ascertain the correct date for age determination. The court analyzed the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which aims to provide care, protection, treatment, development, and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles. Section 32 of the Act mandates the competent authority to make due enquiry as to the age of a person brought before it and record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, based on the date of appearance before the authority. The court emphasized that the Act does not explicitly state that the age should be determined by the date of the offence. Instead, the legislative intent, as derived from the preamble and the statement of objects and reasons, supports determining age based on the date of appearance before the competent authority. The court further referenced international standards, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), which emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and proportionality in response to juvenile offenders. The court concluded that the date of the commission of the offence is irrelevant for determining juvenile status; instead, the age should be assessed based on the date the person is brought before the competent authority. 2. Validity of the Age Determination Findings: The petitioner's age was determined by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), who concluded that the petitioner was above 16 years old at the time of the offence. This finding was upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal and the High Court in revision. The petitioner challenged these findings, seeking leave to appeal. The court reviewed the evidence and the procedures followed by the lower courts. The A.C.J.M. had directed an enquiry under Section 32 of the Act, referred the petitioner for examination by a Medical Board, and considered additional evidence before concluding the petitioner's age. The court found that the age determination was based on a thorough appreciation of evidence and valid reasoning. The findings of the A.C.J.M., upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court, were deemed appropriate, and no case was made out for interference. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the relevant date for determining juvenile status is the date when the person is brought before the competent authority, not the date of the offence. The findings regarding the petitioner's age were upheld as they were based on substantial evidence and valid reasoning.
|
