- (1.) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been enacted with the object for providing proper care, protection and treatment by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation, but at the same time, it has also to be seen that a heavy duty is cast upon the Courts that while determining the age, the Court has to bear in mind that unscrupulous should not get himself declared as juvenile on the basis of wrong certificate. The determination of age is a delicate matter and it cannot be decided in a routine manner.
(2.) The revisionist Gaurav Shukla, who is involved in a case under Sections 365, 376 IPC relating to P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow, has claimed juvenility on the basis of high school mark-sheet in which his date of birth has been recorded as 02.10.1989. The alleged occurrence took place on 02.05.2005 in respect of which an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2. It is not disputed that no one was named in the FIR. When the police proceeded with the investigation, the name of the revisionist along with other co-accused came into light. He approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.3936 (MB) of 2005, in which the arrest of the revisionist was stayed. While the investigation was in progress, the police of Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow registered another criminal case against the revisionist on 19.07.2005 being Case Crime No.260/2005. In this case also, the revisionist on his appearance claimed juvenility on the basis of high school mark-sheet and when the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, the Board on the basis of high school mark-sheet, declared the revisionist as juvenile. The case which gave rise to the present revision being Crime No.80/2005 was also referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as the revisionist had claimed juvenility and in this case also, the Juvenile Justice Board declared him as juvenile on the basis of high school mark-sheet in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 02.10.1989. This declaration was made by the Board vide order dated 18.10.2005. This order was challenged by the opposite party No.2 by filing a belated criminal appeal in which the appellate Court, condoned the delay and after hearing, set aside the order dated 18.10.2005 and remitted the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board with the direction that a fresh inquiry be made with regard to the age of the revisionist. The learned appellate court while allowing the appeal vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2010, directed the Juvenile Justice Board to examine the documentary evidence with regard to the age of the revisionist and then decide as to whether he was juvenile on the date of occurrence. After the matter was remitted back to the Juvenile Justice Board, the Board conducted a detailed inquiry and by the order dated 15.01.2013 again refused to declare him as juvenile. The Board conducted a detailed inquiry and came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the revisionist is not 02.10.1989 but is 14.03.1987. This order of the Board dated 15.01.2013 was again challenged by the revisionist by filing Criminal Appeal No.7/2013, which was allowed on 21.03.2013 and the matter was again sent back to the Board. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board again passed an order dated 27.03.2014 refusing to declare the revisionist as juvenile. This order was again challenged by the revisionist by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.104/2014. This appeal was also dismissed on 11.03.2015. The orders dated 11.03.2015 passed by the appellate court and that of the Board dated 27.03.2014 have been challenged by the revisionist before this Court.
(3.) This Court while entertaining the revision of the revisionist and issuing notice to the complainant, passed an order that the trial may go on subject to the decision of this revision. It has been informed to the Court that after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court on 21.04.2015, the trial court proceeded with the trial and now the trial is almost at the fag end and only the judgment is to be pronounced.;