Summary
A man accused of the gang rape of a minor under the IPC and the POCSO Act claimed he was a juvenile. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge held an inquiry, found his matriculation certificate forged and the school and municipal birth records unreliable, and relied on a medical board opinion to hold that he was not a juvenile. The High Court reversed this in revision, relying on a 2002 municipal birth certificate. The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge's finding. The municipal register produced on the Court's direction contained no entry no. 1545 of 18.04.2002. The records relied on were therefore fabricated, and the medical board's opinion showed he was not a juvenile.
Issues
- Whether the High Court in revision rightly set aside a Sessions Court's age-determination inquiry and held the accused a juvenile on the strength of a municipal birth certificate
- How the documents listed in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 are to be weighed when they are found forged or unreliable, and when a medical opinion may be sought
Provisions considered
- Section 7-A, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000The court must inquire into and record a finding on a claim of juvenility. The Sessions Judge's inquiry here was upheld. (¶¶ 17, 29)
- Rule 12(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007The matriculation certificate, school record and municipal birth certificate apply in order of preference. A medical opinion may be sought where these are unavailable or are found fabricated or unreliable. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- Rule 12(3)(a) ranks the matriculation certificate first, then the first school's birth record, then the municipal or panchayat birth certificate, with a medical opinion only in their absence. Where the documents are fabricated or manipulated, a medical examination may be directed, and their credibility depends on the facts of each case. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The matriculation certificate was rightly treated as forged. The accused's mother said he never studied beyond Class 9, and the JMFC found the certificate fabricated. (¶ 25)
- The school scholar register was rightly doubted. No proof of date of birth was filed at admission, the mother admitted the recorded date was wrong, the father's occupation was falsely recorded, and the school director was a relative. (¶ 26)
- The municipal birth certificate was unreliable because the register was interpolated and overwritten without authentication. The record produced before the Supreme Court showed that entry no. 1545 dated 18.04.2002 did not exist, the last entry being 1544. The High Court erred in relying on a fabricated certificate. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- The Sessions Judge's finding was borne out by the inquiry record and the medical board's opinion, and the High Court manifestly erred in reversing it. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgments of 22.08.2016 were set aside and the Sessions Judge's report rejecting the plea of juvenility was sustained; the appellant's name is to be shown as 'XYZ'.