//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec. 302 / 201 and 376 of I.P.C. – Accused filed a certificate that he is a Juvenile – Trial court send him for Medical examination – Board opined that he is 17 years, giving margin 2 years, the trail court rejected his plea – High court allowed the plea as the certificate not held as forged one by trial court – Apex court allowed the additional evidence filed by appellant one is a certificate stating that the certificate filed by accused is a forged one and another certificate was about the date of birth of the accused – Apex court summoned both the principals and examined the records and find that accused is not juvenile and held that accused was 21 years by the date of offence and as such allowed the appeal = Sikander Mahto . … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @ … RESPONDENT(S) @ Mobin Ansari & Anr. = 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41268

Sec. 302 / 201 and 376 of I.P.C. – Accused filed a certificate that he is a Juvenile – Trial court send him for Medical examination – Board opined that he is 17 years, giving margin 2 years, the trail court rejected his plea – High court allowed the plea as the certificate not held as forged one by trial court – Apex court allowed  the additional evidence filed by appellant one is a certificate stating that the certificate filed by accused is a forged one and another certificate was about the date of birth of  the accused  – Apex court summoned both the principals and examined the records and find that accused is not juvenile and held that accused was 21 years by the date of offence and as such allowed the appeal = 

The first respondent Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @   Mobin  Ansari

was committed to the Court of Sessions to  face  trial  for  offences  under

Sections 302/201 and 376 of the Indian Penal  Code.   The  first  respondent

filed an application claiming to be a juvenile and  in  support  thereof  he

had enclosed a certificate issued by the  Government  Primary  Urdu  School,

Shekhawa,  Basantpur,  Block  Mainatand  wherein  his  date  of  birth   was

mentioned as 15.01.1991.  The date of occurrence of the offences alleged  in

the present case is 16.11.2006.

3.    The  learned  Trial  Court,  for  reasons  not  very  clearly  stated,

recorded the finding that the certificate produced by the  first  respondent

was a forged one.  Accordingly, the first respondent was  sent  for  medical

examination by a Board.  Though the report of the Board was  to  the  effect

that the first respondent was 17 years of age, the learned Trial Court  took

the view that the said opinion would admit the possibility  of  a  variation

of  2  years.   Consequently,  the  learned  Trial  Court  by  order   dated

24.12.2007 refused to accept the claim of juvenility  raised  on  behalf  of

the first respondent.

4.    Aggrieved, the first respondent moved the Patna High Court.  By  order

dated 14.11.2008 the High Court interfered with the  order  of  the  learned

Trial Court and allowed the  application  of  the  first  respondent  herein

declaring him to be a juvenile and to be of sixteen and a half years of  age

on the date of alleged occurrence.  Challenging  the  aforesaid  finding  of

the High Court, the complainant, who is the father  of  the  victim  of  the

crime, has approached this Court. =

Additional evidence

 

The first document that has been brought on the record of the  present

appeal is a letter/certificate  dated  3.4.2013  issued  by  the  Principal,

Government  Primary  Urdu  School,  Shekhawa,   Basantpur,   Block-Mainatand

wherein it is mentioned that no student having the name and  particulars  of

the first respondent had ever studied in the school  in  question  and  that

the certificate issued in the name of the school is a forged document.   

The

second document is another certificate issued by the  Principal,  Government

Primary School, Purbi  Paukuahwa,  Block-Mainatand,  West  Champaran,  Bihar

which states that the particulars of the first  respondent  are  entered  in

the records of the said school and that his date of birth  as  mentioned  in

the school admission register is 28.11.1985.  

As the controversy arising  in

the present case is capable of being resolved on the basis of the  aforesaid

two documents, reference to any other  document  would  be  superfluous  and

hence is avoided.

8.    The first  respondent  has  not  filed  any  affidavit  or  objections

denying the veracity of the two certificates referred  to  above.  

However,

as the Court had to be satisfied with  the  authenticity  of  the  said  two

documents, on 27.01.2014 the following order was passed.

           “In order to find out the age of Respondent No.1-accused on  the

           date of occurrence, we direct the Principal, Government  Primary

           Urdu  School,   Shekhawa,   Basantpur,   Block-Mainatand,   West

           Champaran, Bihar and Principal, Government Primary School, Purbi

           Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand,  West  Champaran,  Bihar  to  appear

           alongwith the connected original record  before  this  Court  on

           24th February, 2014.

 

 

                 List on 24th February, 2014”

 

9.    Pursuant thereto the Principal of the two schools  appeared  in  Court

today alongwith the records in original.  The said  records  would  indicate

that there is no record of the first respondent  being  enrolled  or  having

studied in the Government Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa,  Basantpur,  Block-

Mainatand.  From  the  records  of  the  Government  Primary  School,  Purbi

Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar it  is  evident  that  the

first respondent had enrolled himself in the said school on  08.01.1996  and

his date of birth is recorded in the admission register as 28.11.1985.   The

relevant records placed before this Court  by  the  Principals  of  the  two

schools pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2014 therefore indicates that  the

claim of the first respondent to be a juvenile remains unsubstantiated  and,

in fact, the records of the school where  he  was  enrolled  would  indicate

that his date of birth is 28.11.1985.  Properly  calculated  with  reference

to the date of the alleged crime, the first respondent  was  aged  about  21

years on the relevant date and therefore he was not a juvenile.

10.   We, therefore, cannot sustain the order  dated  14.11.2008  passed  by

the High Court. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside  the  said

order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the High Court and restore the order  dated

24.12.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court.

 
2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41268

P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.511 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 9028 OF 2011)
Sikander Mahto . … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @ … RESPONDENT(S)
@ Mobin Ansari & Anr.

 

J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The first respondent Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @ Mobin Ansari
was committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial for offences under
Sections 302/201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent
filed an application claiming to be a juvenile and in support thereof he
had enclosed a certificate issued by the Government Primary Urdu School,
Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block Mainatand wherein his date of birth was
mentioned as 15.01.1991. The date of occurrence of the offences alleged in
the present case is 16.11.2006.
3. The learned Trial Court, for reasons not very clearly stated,
recorded the finding that the certificate produced by the first respondent
was a forged one. Accordingly, the first respondent was sent for medical
examination by a Board. Though the report of the Board was to the effect
that the first respondent was 17 years of age, the learned Trial Court took
the view that the said opinion would admit the possibility of a variation
of 2 years. Consequently, the learned Trial Court by order dated
24.12.2007 refused to accept the claim of juvenility raised on behalf of
the first respondent.
4. Aggrieved, the first respondent moved the Patna High Court. By order
dated 14.11.2008 the High Court interfered with the order of the learned
Trial Court and allowed the application of the first respondent herein
declaring him to be a juvenile and to be of sixteen and a half years of age
on the date of alleged occurrence. Challenging the aforesaid finding of
the High Court, the complainant, who is the father of the victim of the
crime, has approached this Court.
5. A reply has been filed on behalf of the first respondent in the
present appeal wherein reliance has, once again, been placed on the school
certificate issued by the Government Urdu School Shekhwa, Basantpur, Distt.
East Champaran reference to which has been made earlier. The first
respondent in his reply has also contended that the report of the medical
examination clearly indicates that he was a minor on the relevant date and
that there is no reason as to why the said medical report should not be
accepted.
6. The appellant has been allowed by this Court leave to bring on record
certain documents which, according to the appellant, have a significant
bearing to the issues arising in the present case.
7. The first document that has been brought on the record of the present
appeal is a letter/certificate dated 3.4.2013 issued by the Principal,
Government Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block-Mainatand
wherein it is mentioned that no student having the name and particulars of
the first respondent had ever studied in the school in question and that
the certificate issued in the name of the school is a forged document. The
second document is another certificate issued by the Principal, Government
Primary School, Purbi Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar
which states that the particulars of the first respondent are entered in
the records of the said school and that his date of birth as mentioned in
the school admission register is 28.11.1985. As the controversy arising in
the present case is capable of being resolved on the basis of the aforesaid
two documents, reference to any other document would be superfluous and
hence is avoided.
8. The first respondent has not filed any affidavit or objections
denying the veracity of the two certificates referred to above. However,
as the Court had to be satisfied with the authenticity of the said two
documents, on 27.01.2014 the following order was passed.
“In order to find out the age of Respondent No.1-accused on the
date of occurrence, we direct the Principal, Government Primary
Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block-Mainatand, West
Champaran, Bihar and Principal, Government Primary School, Purbi
Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar to appear
alongwith the connected original record before this Court on
24th February, 2014.
List on 24th February, 2014”

9. Pursuant thereto the Principal of the two schools appeared in Court
today alongwith the records in original. The said records would indicate
that there is no record of the first respondent being enrolled or having
studied in the Government Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block-
Mainatand. From the records of the Government Primary School, Purbi
Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar it is evident that the
first respondent had enrolled himself in the said school on 08.01.1996 and
his date of birth is recorded in the admission register as 28.11.1985. The
relevant records placed before this Court by the Principals of the two
schools pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2014 therefore indicates that the
claim of the first respondent to be a juvenile remains unsubstantiated and,
in fact, the records of the school where he was enrolled would indicate
that his date of birth is 28.11.1985. Properly calculated with reference
to the date of the alleged crime, the first respondent was aged about 21
years on the relevant date and therefore he was not a juvenile.
10. We, therefore, cannot sustain the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by
the High Court. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the said
order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the High Court and restore the order dated
24.12.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court.
……………………………CJI.
[P. SATHASIVAM]

 

………………………………J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 27, 2014.
———————–
6

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,005,460 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,876 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com