In CRR-3315-2019(O&M)-PUNJ HC- Juvenile Justice Act is beneficial legislation and hence question of juvenility can be raised even after conviction of juvenile: P&H HC
Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj [17-10-2022]

Read Order: Mukeem v. State of Haryana

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, October 18, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the JJ Act) is a beneficial legislation and hence the question of juvenility can be raised at any time even after the conviction of the juvenile. 

“It is evident from the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that object and reasons of the Act should not be allowed to be defeated, however, the juvenile has to prove his case by leading cogent evidence that on the date of occurrence he was less than 18 years of age and thus being a juvenile should be given the benefit of the Act”, Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj held while also adding, “An inquiry regarding the same has to be conducted meticulously before declaring the accused as a juvenile. Any laxity on the part of the investigating agency would result in defeating the objective of the Act if the accused, who is otherwise, major succeeds in getting himself declared a juvenile by manipulating the record. Hence the procedure laid down by the Act should be followed strictly”, the Bench added. 

The present petition was filed against the order whereby the petitioner’s application praying for declaring him a juvenile, was dismissed by the Trial Court.

Briefly, the facts of the matter are that the petitioner was being prosecuted on the allegations of committing an offence under Section 452 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act against a minor. During the trial, the petitioner took the plea of juvenility on the ground that as per records, on the date of occurrence, the petitioner’s age was 15 years 4 months and 28 days and hence he should be tried in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act. 

This application was dismissed, hence, the present revision petition was filed. 

Admittedly, the occurrence in question took place in April 2019. The prosecution relied upon the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned on his Aadhar Card as August 12, 1998, whereas the petitioner relied upon the date of birth mentioned in his birth certificate (December 25, 2003). The petitioner’s father, examined as the sole witness, deposed that he had nine children and that the petitioner who studied upto third grade was born on December 25, 2003. In his cross-examination, the father deposed that he did not remember the exact date of birth of any of his children except the petitioner. Also, regarding the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card, he submitted that he got the same changed some 10-12 days ago. 

After hearing the parties, the Court reiterated that the plea of juvenility can be raised by the juvenile at any stage of the judicial proceedings meaning thereby that even if the appeal is pending after conviction before the High Court or Supreme Court the plea can be raised by the juvenile to show that at the time of the occurrence he was less than 18 years of age. 

“The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is a beneficial legislation and hence the question of juvenility can be raised at any time even after the conviction of the juvenile”, the Bench held while also adding that the juvenile has to prove his case by leading cogent evidence that on the date of occurrence he was less than 18 years of age and thus being a juvenile should be given the benefit of the Act. 

In this regard, the Court opined that an inquiry regarding the same has to be conducted meticulously before declaring the accused as a juvenile and any laxity on the part of the investigating agency would result in defeating the objective of the Act if the accused, who is otherwise, major succeeds in getting himself declared a juvenile by manipulating the record. 

“Hence the procedure laid down by the Act should be followed strictly”, the Court held.  

Adverting to the case at hand, the Court observed that the birth certificate produced by the petitioner was issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan, whereas he was a resident of District Nuh, Haryana. The fact that the petitioner’s father did not know the details of the date of birth of the rest of his eight children and that the corrections in the Aadhar Card regarding the petitioner’s date of birth were made about 10-12 days ago, was also considered by the Court. Also, the Court added that there was nothing on record to show that the inquiry was made regarding ascertaining the date of birth of all the other 8 siblings of the petitioner on the basis of which the Inquiry Officer could pinpoint that the entry relied upon by the petitioner belongs to him. 

Additionally, the Court opined that by Section 94 of the Act, it is the Committee or the Board which is to proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36 for ascertaining the age of the accused, who is brought before it and appears to be juvenile. But, in the present case, it was noted that the petitioner never appeared to have raised a plea regarding his juvenility at the initial stage and thus filed an application before the Trial Court. 

“The impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court and not by the Committee or Board as per the mandate of statutory provisions of Section 94 of the Act. The Legislature had specifically made the provision that in case any party is aggrieved by the order passed by the Committee or the Board under section 94 the same is appealable for the redressal of their grievances under section 101 of the Act. However, the statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature have not been followed in the case in hand”, the Court held. 

Thus, the Court held that by not adverting to the procedure established by the Act, the procedure adopted in ascertaining the age of the juvenile was vitiated. 

“As per statutory provision of the Act, the accused should have been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for carrying out the procedure as per statutory provision of Section 94 of the Act which has not been complied with in this case. A thorough inquiry thereafter was required to be carried out for ascertaining the genuineness of the documents relied upon by both the sides and then draw a conclusion regarding the age of the accused”, the Court held. 

Resultantly, the court set aside the impugned order.