Primacy has to be given to date of birth certificate from school, or matriculation or equivalent certificate from concerned examination Board in terms of Sec.94 of Juvenile Justice Act, rules P&H HC

Read Order: Arsheed Ahmad Rather v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 19,  2022: While dealing with a petition seeking quashing of Trial Court order which dismissed the petitioner’s claim of juvenility based on his date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that as per Section 94 of the J.J.Act, 2015, to ascertain the date of birth for deciding the claim of juvenility, primacy is to be given to the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, and in case these documents are not available then the remaining documents can be relied upon.

The Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri further said that although the petitioner’s date of birth was checked from the UIDAI website, it is a common practice that Aadhaar cards are made on information given by the applicant regarding his date of birth and in many cases proper verification is not done. The issue regarding declaring a person to be juvenile or not is a vital issue and affects the rights of an individual vested in him under a Statute. 

An FIR under Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act was lodged against the petitioner and three other co-accused persons. The petitioner claimed to be a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2 (35) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and he filed an application before the Trial Court for declaring him a juvenile. However, his application was dismissed and thus he filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing this order of dismissal.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that for ascertaining the petitioner’s date of birth, the Court relied upon the Aadhaar card while ignoring the admission and withdrawal register of the petitioner’s school which were duly proved by him by examining witnesses. This was in violation of  Section 94 r/w Section 9(2) and (3) of the J.J.Act 2015, contended the counsel.

On the other hand, the State Counsel contended that the police sent the Aadhar Card for verification to the regional office of UIDAI which intimated that the Aadhaar card of an individual can be verified from the website of UIDAI and the trial Court got the date of birth checked. It was further submitted that even at the time of arrest of the petitioner, he disclosed his age as 20 years to the police. 

The moot question before the Court was to decide as to which one out of the two contrary pieces of evidence produced by the petitioner and the prosecution was to be relied on. The court further observed that not only the position of law as enumerated in Section 94 read with Section 9 (2) and (3) of the J.J. Act 2015 but also the credibility which can be attached to a document has to be considered.

The Court observed that the petitioner produced a record of the school including the admission register, withdrawal register and the school leaving certificate to prove his claim of juvenility and these certificates were found to be credible by the Court. The Court also observed that it is not the prosecution’s case that the aforesaid documents were forged or fabricated documents. 

The Court further opined that neither Section 94 nor Section 9 of the J.J. Act, 2015, provides any provision for Aadhar card, rather the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, is to be given primacy and in the absence of any challenge to the authenticity of the school record, reliance has to be made on the school record by virtue of Section 94 read with Section sub Sections 2 and 3 of the J.J.Act, 2015.

The Court then reiterated the ratio put forth by the Apex Court in the case of  Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[2022(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 151],  wherein it was observed that if two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. Further, when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents

Thus, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be tried as a Juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board.