RANJEET GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

                     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 497


                     RANJEET GOSWAMI                                 A
                                v.
              STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2013)
                   SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
                                                                     B
      [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

    JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN) ACT, 2000:
                                                                     c
     s. 2(2) - Juvenile in conflict with law - Proof of juvenility
- The school leaving certificate having been proved, the
accused could not be subjected to medical examination -
Going by the school leaving certificate, since appellant was
a juvenile on the date of occurrence, he can be tried only by        D
JJ Board.

     The appellant, who was accused of having committed
offences punishable ulss. 376; 302 and 201, IPC, in order
to prove that on the date of occurrence, he was a juvenile,
got the Head Mistress of the School examined to prove                E
the School Leaving Certificate. The respondent filed an
application that the school leaving certificate was false
and fabricated. The Juvenile Justice Board then sought
for and accepted the opinion of the Medical Borad, which
opined that the appellant was about 20 years of age on               F
the date of occurrence. The Sessions Judge held that the
JJ Board did not give any cogent reason for not
accepting the school leaving certificate. However, the
High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and
restored that of the JJ Board.                                       G
    Allowing the appeal, the Court.

    HELD: No cogent reasons have been stated by the
                               497                                   H
    498      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A High Court to discard the school leaving certificate which
  was issued on 10.04.2004 by the then Principal of the
  school. The certificate reveals the date of birth of the
  accused as 10.05.1991. The school leaving certificate was
  proved by examining the Head-mistress of the school.
B She has recognized the signatures of the Principal who
  issued the school leaving certificate. The evidence
  adduced by her was not challenged. Therefore, there is
  no reason to reject the school leaving certificate. In the
  circumstances, as per the ratio laid down in Ashwani
c Kumar Saxena, there is no question of subjecting the
  accused to a medical examination by a medical board.
  Going by the school leaving certificate, since the
  appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, he
  can be tried only by the JJ Board. Consequently, the
  order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of
0
  the Sessions Judge restored. [Para 9-10) [501-F~H; 502-
  C-D]

       Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. 2012 (10)
              =
    SCR 540 2012 (9) sec 750 - relied on.          ·
E
                         Case Law Reference:
          2012 (10) SCR 540       relied on             para 2
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F   No. 1465 of 2013.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2010 of the High
    ":ourt of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. Revision No. 504 of 2009.

      Shankar Narayanan (for Gaurav Agrawal) for the
G Appellant.

         Jayesh Gaurav (for Gopal Prasad), Barun Kr. Sinha,
    Pratibha Sinha, Aayush Raj (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal) for
    the Respondents.
H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
   RANJEET GOSWAMI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                  499


     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.                    A

      2. We notice with concern the commission of large number
of crimes by the juveniles at a time when there is a hue and cry
to lower the age limit of juvenile in conflict with law within the
meaning of clause (I) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care B
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Claiming·juvenility large
number of applications are also being filed before the criminal
courts and age determination enquiry orders passed by the
Board themselves result in several litigations right up to this
Court. This case is also one among them in spite of the various C
directions given by this Court as to how to determine the age
of a juvenile in conflict with law in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v.
State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750.

     3. The appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the
offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal D
Code, along with three others. The appellant, after submission
of the charge-sheet, surrendered before the court on
13.06.2008 and filed an application before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dumka on 17.06.2008 stating that on the date of
occurrence i.e. 12/13.04.2008 he was a juvenile since his date E
of birth was 10.05.1991, as per the records kept in the Primary
School, Benagadia.

       4. The CJM, Dumka forwarded the said application to the
  Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka (for short F
  "the JJ Board") to conduct an appropriate enquiry and to submit
  a report. The application was registered as GR Case No.577
  of 2008. The appellant preferred a petition on 18.06.2008
  before the Board to examine the Principal of Primary School,
  Benagadiya along with the admission register and also to
  examine the person in~charge of the Head Master, as well as G
  the head mistress of Akmit School, Benagadia to prove his date
  of birth. Application was allowed on 23.06.2008, but on the
  same date, a fresh petition was filed on behalf of the
· respondent duly endorsed by the APP stating that the appellant
  had produced a forged copy of the admission register. Appellant H
    500     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 9 S.C.R.


A examined Neela Hembrahm, who was the Head Mistress of the
  School since 17 .8.2006, to prove the School Leaving
  Certificate issued on 10.4.2004, by the then Principal of the
  School, whose signature was identified and recognized.
  Applications dated 26.6.2008 and 31.7.2008 were also filed
B by the appellant for medical examination.

         5. The JJ Board then sought the opinion of the Medical
    Board and the Board opined that the appellant was about 20
    years of age on the date of the incident. There was some
C   confusion whether the appellant and one Rajiv Ranjan Goswami
    was the same person, but it was found otherwise, and the
    School Leaving Certificate produced was not accepted. The
    JJ Board, however, accepted the report of the Medical Board
    and passed an order on 27 .3.2009, rejecting the application
    holding that the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of
D   occurrence. JJ Board then forwarded the report to the CJM.
    Learned CJM, on accepting the report, committed the case to
    the Sessions Court and it was registered as Case No.132 of
    2009. Accused then preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal
    No.71 of 2009 before the Sessions Judge, Dumka. Learned
E   Sessions Judge took the view that the JJ Board had not
    assigned any cogent reasons for discarding the School
    Admission Register and then to accept the medical report.
    Learned Judge also took the view that there was conflicting
    evidence as to the age of the accused, hence the benefit of
F   doubt should go to the accused. The appeal was accordingly
    allowed and the order passed by the court below was set.aside
    and a direction was given to recall the case from the Sessions
    Court to be tried by the JJ Board.

G     6. The respondent aggrieved by the order, approached
  the Division Bench of the High Court by way of Criminal
  Revision No.504 of 2009. The Criminal Revision was allowed
  and the order passed by the JJ Board was restored, setting
  aside the order dated 30.05.2009, passed by the Sessions
H Judge, Dumka.
    RANJEET GOSWAMI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                       501
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
      7. Shri Shankar Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for         A
 the appellant submitted that the High Court has committed an
 error in reversing the judgment of the Sessions Judge without
 examining the correctness or otherwise on the school
 admission register, which will indicate that his date of birth is
 10.05.1991 and hence a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e.        B
 12/13-04-2008. Learned counsel also submitted that the
 admission register was properly proved through the head
 mistress of the school and there is no reason to discard the
 same. Learned counsel submitted that the question of
 accepting the report of the medical board arises only if the          c
 school leaving certificate is discarded by stating cogent
 reasons.

      8. Shri Barun Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for
 the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court
 has rightly accepted the report of the medical board which            D
 indicated that the accused was not a juvenile on the date of
 occurrence. Learned counsel pointed out that the medical
 board has assessed the age of the accused as 20 years on
 the date of occurrence i.e. 12/13-04-2008. Learned counsel
 also submitted that there was some confusion with regard to           E
 the documents produced, one document showed that the date
 of birth of one Rajiv Ranjan Goswami as 10.04.1990 though
 the appellant's date of birth was shown as 10.05.1991. It is due
 to that confusion the matter was referred to the medical board
 and medical board, in turn, opined that the age of the accused        F
 was 20 years on the date of occurrence.
        9. We are of the view that no cogent reasons have been
  stated by the High court to discard the school leaving certificate
  which was issued on 10.04.2004 by the then Principal of the
  school. The certificate reveals the date of birth of the accused     G
  as 10.05.1991. The school leaving certificate was proved by
  examining the head mistress of the school. She has recognized
  the signatures of the principal who issued the school leaving
  certificate. The evidence adduced by the head mistress was
. not challenged. Consequently, there is no reason to discard that     H
   502      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A document. Further, we notice that there was some confusion
  as to whether the appellant, whose name is Ranjeet Goswami
  is the same person Rajiv Ranjan Goswami. The investigating
  officer's report indicates that they are different persons.
  Consequently we have to take it that the school ieaving
B certificate produced was in respect of the appellant which has
  been proved.

        10. We, therefore, find no reason to reject the school
  leaving certificate. If that be so, as per the ratio laid down in
  Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) there is no question of
C subjecting the accused to a medical examination by a medical
  board. Going by the school leaving certificate since the
  appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, he can be
  tried only by the JJ Board. Consequently, the order passed by
  the High Court is set aside and that of the Sessions Judge,
D Dumka is restored. The appeal is allowed, as stated above.

   R.P.                                           Appeal allowed.