9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l first attended (other than a play school), we find that the certificate issued and school records maintained by the Dayanand Arya Middle School, Sohna, where the Appellant studied for four years till class V, as duly affirmed through the examination of a witness from such school, is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Clause (a)(ii) of Rule 12(3). Of course, it goes without saying that the certificate issued by the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Sohna and the accompanying school records serve to corroborate the veracity of the records furnished by the former school. It would not be out of place to highlight here that the findings in the inquiry report have also not been controverted by the State. Conclusion - It has been conclusively established that the date of birth of the Appellant was 12.07.1984 and as such he was aged 16 years, 2 months and 2 days at the time of commission of the offence dated 14.09.2000. In such circumstances, we do not have any doubt that the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court in the instant matter amounts to an inquiry conducted by this Court itself, and is conclusive proof of the age of the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The High Court, however, rejected such contention and affirmed the conviction of the three Accused, including the Appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the Appellant filed the instant appeal, inter alia raising the plea of juvenility again. The Appellant relied upon a transfer certificate issued in his favour by the Dayanand Middle School, Sohna, Gurgaon which showed his date of birth to be 12.07.1984. He also relied upon a certificate issued by the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Sohna which showed his date of birth to be the same. It was submitted by the Appellant before this Court that the certificates in question prima facie entitled him to claim the conduct of an inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act. The Appellant referred to the decisions of this Court in Murari Thakur v. State of Bihar, (2009) 16 SCC 256, Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344, and Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 523. 5. Keeping in mind such circumstances and the certificates relied upon, this Court vide order dated 09.08.2012 directed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to conduct an inquiry in respect of the age of the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 7A of the 2000 Act (see Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra), Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489; Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of UP, (supra); Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637). 10. In light of the above legal position, it is evident that the Appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act if his age is determined to be below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. Moreover, it would be irrelevant that the plea of juvenility was not raised before the Trial Court, in light of Section 7A. As per the report of the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, in this case, the Appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence. The only question before us that needs to be determined is whether such report may be given precedence over the contrary view taken by the High Court, so that the benefit of the 2000 Act may be given to the Appellant. 11. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to Section 7A of the 2000 Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short, "the 2007 Rules"), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin 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. 13. It is evident from a perusal of the above that if any Court, including this Court, is of the opinion that an Accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, or if a claim of juvenility is raised before it, the Court must conduct an inquiry regarding the determination of the age of the Accused. The evidence collected by way of such inquiry, as is specified in Clauses (a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of Rule 12(3), or in the absence whereof, Clause (b) of the same, is treated as conclusive proof of the age of the Accused. In such a situation, it would be clear that such an inquiry conducted by this Court would be given precedence over a view of the age of the Accused taken by the High Court. It is relevant to note here itself t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt over the opinion of the High Court regarding the age of an Accused can be restated as whether such inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court, if thereafter affirmed by this Court, would amount to an inquiry conducted by this Court itself. If this be the case, the findings of such inquiry would prevail over the view taken by the High Court, as is evident from the preceding discussion. 17. We are of the opinion that the above question must be answered in the affirmative. This Court, on previous occasions as well, has adopted the practice of directing the Registrar (Judicial) to conduct the inquiry in terms of Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules on behalf of this Court, and accepted the findings made therein (see Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra). Seeing that the Registrar (Judicial) is a District Judge serving on deputation at the Supreme Court, recourse to his or her assistance in the form of collecting evidence and arriving at a finding regarding the claim of juvenility of the person concerned may be undertaken by this Court in order to save its judicial time. However, it must be stressed that the findings in an inquiry conducted by the Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.07.1992 and withdrew on 31.03.1996 after passing Class V. 20. With respect to the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Sohna, the learned Registrar also called for the school records, which were produced through Mrs. Nirmal Kalra, Teacher, under the instructions of the Principal of the school. She too affirmed that the Transfer Certificate dated 12.12.2000 was bona fide, and issued under the signature of the then Principal. She affirmed having compared the entries in the certificate with the corresponding entries in the relevant register of the school, copies of which had been submitted to the learned Registrar. The following details with respect to the Appellant's period of study in the school were also affirmed by Mrs. Kalra on affidavit: S. No. Admission No. Date of Admission Date of Striking Off Reasons for Striking Off the Name 1. 14163 7.5.1996 (in Class VI) 19.4.1997 (in Class VII) Non-payment of School Funds 2. 14678 17.5.1997 (in Class VII) March 1999 (in Class VIII) Failed in Class VIII Board Examination 3. 15546 7.7.1999 (in Class VIII) 7.8.1999 (in Class VIII) Continued absence 21. The learned Registrar concluded that the school transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate dated 24.03.2012 issued by the Dayanand Arya Middle School, Sohna, to indicate that the name Raj Kumar appearing on such certificate was the full name of the Appellant. 24. In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it has been conclusively established that the date of birth of the Appellant was 12.07.1984 and as such he was aged 16 years, 2 months and 2 days at the time of commission of the offence dated 14.09.2000. In such circumstances, we do not have any doubt that the inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) upon the direction of this Court in the instant matter amounts to an inquiry conducted by this Court itself, and is conclusive proof of the age of the Appellant as provided in Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules. As the Appellant satisfies the requirement of Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of the 2000 Act, the said Act is applicable to him in full force in light of Section 7A and Section 20. 25. Criminal Appeal hereby stands allowed and the order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Seeing that the Appellant has already spent 6 years in imprisonment, whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
