advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, February 28, 2014

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


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.