D.K.Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner Deepak Kumar Singh under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the Judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by Sri. G.K. Verma. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2009 by which the prayer of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile, rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 629 of 2006 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was in custody for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the village chowkidar in his statement before the police on 4.5.2006 narrated that a dead body of an unknown person was found thrown by putting inside a gunny bag. THE neck and limbs of the deceased was tightly tied with nylon ropes to which Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2006 was registered for the alleged offence under Section302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown accused. During course of investigation the name of the deceased was transpired to be Santosh Agarwal who was earlier abducted by the culprits for ransom. THE police got some clues about involvement of the petitioner Deepak Kumar Singh in commission of the alleged offence and accordingly, he was arrested and he confessed his guilt that he abducted the deceased in association with Mantoo Singh. He has given a detailed description as to how both of them hatched a plan to abduct Santosh Agarwal and they demanded ransom from his family for securing his release. From the very beginning the petitioner had taken the plea of his juvenility before the CJM. In pursuance of such plea, the case record of the petitioner was separated and it was referred to the juvenile Justice Board Ranchi for determination of his age. An enquiry was conducted under section 49 of the said Act and the Board after considering all the materials collected during course of enquiry held that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the relevant time and date of the alleged occurrence. During course of such enquiry the petitioner was referred to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi for determination of his age and the Medical Board duly constituted determined the age of petitioner about 20-21 years. The petitioner then preferred Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2007 under Section 52 of the said Act before the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj which was allowed and the matter was remitted back again to the J.J Board, Ranchi for re-determination of age of the petitioner. In compliance thereof the J.J Board, called for the relevant documents from the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi by which the age of the petitioner was determined between 20 and 21 years. On receipt and upon consideration of the said report, the J.J Board, Ranchi directed appearance of any member of the Medical Board with original documents regarding the assessment of the age of the petitioner for its proof, but in the meantime an independent Juvenile Justice Board was constituted at Daltonganj, where the record of the petitioner was transferred. The Juvenile Justice Board, Daltonganj though it proper to get the age of the petitioner determined by directing the Civil Surgeon Palamau. Accordingly a Medical Board was constituted for the re-determination of the age of the petitioner and the Board determined the age of the petitioner about 19-20 years by the report dated 14.5.2009. During course of enquiry, one of the members of the Medical Board Dr. V.K. Singh was examined as E.W. 3. The J.J. Board Daltonganj finally held the petitioner not a Juvenile against which Cr. Appeal 62 of2009 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj under Section 52 of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 wherein while deciding the appeal it was observed that the Juvenile Justice Board, Daltonganj quit correctly assessed and determined the age of the appellant on the basis of land by detailed discussion and appreciation of medical opinion rendered by the Medical Boards both at Ranchi and Daltonganj and rightly held that the appellant was above 18 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence in the year 2006 and the appeal was dismissed. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel submitted that the learned J.J. Board, Ranchi did not accept the entry made in the school leaving certificate of the petitioner to be genuine which was proved by E.W.I during course of enquiry who was a competent witness being the Headmaster in-charge of the Gandhi-Praveshika Vidhyalaya, Krishna Ashram Sikariya, Jahanabad, wherein date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.8.1993and this fact was corroborated by the father of the petitioner as EW2 during course of enquiry for determination of the age. The J.J. Board Palamau at Daltonganj however, ignoring the evidence of two material enquiry witnesses relied upon the report of the Medical Board, Ranchi wherein age of the petitioner was determined to be 20- 21 years though it could not be substantiated by the evidence of any member of the Board. The Second Medical Board was constituted at Daltonganj pursuant to the direction of the newly constituted J.J. Board in Palamau at Daltonganj which assessed and determined the age of the petitioner as about 19-20 years onl4.5.2009. The occurrence as alleged took place between 3.5.2006 to 4.5.2006 and the age of the petitioner was determined to be about 19-20 years the Medical Board Daltonganj onl4.5.2009. Therefore the learned senior counsel Mr. A.K. Kashyap submitted that the petitioner was definitely under 18 years of age, a juvenile, on the alleged date of occurrence and this fact was ignored while recording the impugned judgment by the Sessions Judge, Daltonganj in Cr Appeal No. 62 of 2009 by dismissing the appeal.
(3.) ADVANCING his argument Mr. Kashyap further submitted that the Head master in charge of the concerned school, where the petitioner last read, was produced and examined as E.W. 1 who proved the school leaving certificate and the admission register wherein the date of birth was recorded as 15.8.1993 as such the petitioner was below 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence on 4.5.2006 E.W.3 also being the member of the Medical Board, Daltonganj, testified that the age of the petitioner was determined between 19-20 years on 14.5.2009 by the Medical Board, therefore, he was below 18 years as on3/4.5.2006 i.e. the alleged date of occurrence. The learned counsel asserted on the point of law that Rule 22(5)(iv) of the Jharkhand Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2003 vests Jurisdiction to the Juvenile Justice Board to obtain the medical opinion with regard to determination of age in absence of required proof of age as per sub-clause I, II, III of clause (5) of Rule 22, by the duly constituted Medical Board, subject to margin of one year, in deserving cases but of course for the reasons to be recorded. In the instant case the petitioner could be able to bring the original transfer certificate on the record and thereby he satisfied the requirement of Rule 22 (5)(II) of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2003 and therefore, assessment and determination of the age by constituting Medical Board was not required.;