RAJINDER CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 24,2002
RAJINDER CHANDRA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BANWAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-6-8] [REFERRED TO]DALIP KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-196] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2004-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOKH SINGH VS. HARKIRAT SINGH ALIAS KIRAT [LAWS(P&H)-2008-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANGSHU PRAMANICK VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-2005-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL GOVIND SHARMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ KHANDAY & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2010-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
GYAN RANJAN PATTNAYAK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2004-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET VASUDEVA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH LAKRA VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2014-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
UMMED SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
GURUDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-105] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN LAL & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALA MISHRA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2018-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RASHID VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2015-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
RICHPAL ALIAS MALIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. STATE [LAWS(GAU)-2011-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. STATE [LAWS(GAU)-2011-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
YUV RAJ VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2011-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI UL ISLAM VS. STATE NCT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-5-121] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL LAKRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
YUSUF ALI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-5-311] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
MUKARRAB ETC. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-155] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-339] [REFERRED TO]
LASSA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KATARA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
NIHAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG ALIAS BRIJLAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-5-84] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA MUNIB GUPTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-294] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU PASLA VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-3-181] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK @ JITENDRA PANI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2011-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2003-8-21] [RELIED ON]
VIRENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL RAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2010-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
BALLU @ BALRAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2009-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAKIM ANSARI VS. STATE OF U P AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-195] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-328] [REFERRED TO]
JUNED HASAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-3-227] [REFERRED]
JUNED HASAN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-3-227] [REFERRED]
RAHEES KHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-142] [REFERRED]
BAPU VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2004-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-119] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SAO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KALITA S/O LATE DEBEN KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-6-89] [REFERRED TO]
TRIKAMBHAI KAVABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-227] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBIR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-129] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NARAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
MALLA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU @ PUSHPRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
SOMESHALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
MANJEET VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-7-18] [RELIED ON]
UPDESH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
JUGENDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-159] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN @ SHRIKRISHNA CHANDRAKANT MARATHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
RADHABAI LAHANU PAREKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-246] [REFERRED TO]
AURANGJEB ALAM ALIAS GUDDU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT ALIAS BAPU NANASAHEB BHANDWALKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Pranjal Tiwari, the accused-respondent No. 2 has been apprehended on 27-2-1997 for an offence under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C. committed on the same day. The accused claimed himself to be a juvenile as having not attained the age of 16 years and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. An enquiry was held. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Court held the accused not to be a juvenile. The accused preferred a revision in the High Court which has been allowed. The orders impugned before the High Court have been quashed and the accused has been held to be a juvenile. The complainant, father of the victim in the incident, has preferred this appeal by special leave.
(3.)At the enquiry, on behalf of the accused, mark sheets of Class VIII and High School, birth certificate, horoscope and entry in Kotwar Book were tendered in documentary evidence. In all of these documents, the date of birth of the accused is entered as 30-9-1981. in oral evidence, Savita Tiwari, P.W. 1, mother of the accused, Gopal Tiwari, P.W. 2, father of the accused, Vinod Kumar Mishra, P.W. 3, Head Master of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, where the accused took his primary education. R. S. Nayak, P.W. 4, Assistant Teacher of the High School where the accused had taken subsequent education and whereat his date of birth was entered into records on the basis of transfer certificate issued by Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Uttam Kumar Soni, P.W. 5, Assistant Teacher, Examination Centre, Government Basic School Kota, who proved the mark sheets and Hari Shankar Tandon, Kotwar, who brought the birth and death register wherein the factum of birth of the accused is recorded, were examined. The learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge scrutinized the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused by applying the principle that it was the accused who was claiming the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, and therefore, the onus lay on him to prove that he was a juvenile and inasmuch as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him left open room for doubt, the onus could not be said to have been discharged. The accused was also subjected to radiological examination. In ossification test report, he was opined to be of 15-16 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge, by reference to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, held that a variation of 2 to 3 years on either side was permissible in the result of ossification test, and therefore, on the basis of such test no definite opinion could be formed.
(2.)Pranjal Tiwari, the accused-respondent No. 2 has been apprehended on 27-2-1997 for an offence under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C. committed on the same day. The accused claimed himself to be a juvenile as having not attained the age of 16 years and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. An enquiry was held. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Court held the accused not to be a juvenile. The accused preferred a revision in the High Court which has been allowed. The orders impugned before the High Court have been quashed and the accused has been held to be a juvenile. The complainant, father of the victim in the incident, has preferred this appeal by special leave.
(3.)At the enquiry, on behalf of the accused, mark sheets of Class VIII and High School, birth certificate, horoscope and entry in Kotwar Book were tendered in documentary evidence. In all of these documents, the date of birth of the accused is entered as 30-9-1981. in oral evidence, Savita Tiwari, P.W. 1, mother of the accused, Gopal Tiwari, P.W. 2, father of the accused, Vinod Kumar Mishra, P.W. 3, Head Master of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, where the accused took his primary education. R. S. Nayak, P.W. 4, Assistant Teacher of the High School where the accused had taken subsequent education and whereat his date of birth was entered into records on the basis of transfer certificate issued by Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Uttam Kumar Soni, P.W. 5, Assistant Teacher, Examination Centre, Government Basic School Kota, who proved the mark sheets and Hari Shankar Tandon, Kotwar, who brought the birth and death register wherein the factum of birth of the accused is recorded, were examined. The learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge scrutinized the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused by applying the principle that it was the accused who was claiming the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, and therefore, the onus lay on him to prove that he was a juvenile and inasmuch as the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him left open room for doubt, the onus could not be said to have been discharged. The accused was also subjected to radiological examination. In ossification test report, he was opined to be of 15-16 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge, by reference to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, held that a variation of 2 to 3 years on either side was permissible in the result of ossification test, and therefore, on the basis of such test no definite opinion could be formed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.