Read Time: 08 minutes

Holding that the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner, the Supreme Court yesterday said that if the reliance is placed on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation.

Relying on its dictum in Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. the court added that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement.

With this view, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam held that one Manoj @ Monu had approached the Court with unclean hands as the documents relied upon by him were not genuine and trustworthy.

Thus, the court refused to give any benefit of juvenility to him.

An appeal was filed challenging an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad declaring the appellant Manoj as juvenile in conflict with law was set aside and he was ordered to stand trial as an adult.

During the pendency of the trial, Manoj had moved an application under Section 7A of the 2000 Act claiming that he was a juvenile as on the date of the incident, relying upon his school record disclosing his date of birth as May 13, 1993.

The Additional Sessions Judge, found Manoj to be 16 years 8 months and 5 days old on the date of incident as per the Ossification Test report, but the Board of Doctors in their report said his age was 23-24 years.

The High Court while setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the family register prepared under The U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970.

Procedure for determining the age is given under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Manoj relied upon three documents such as a Birth Certificate; School leaving Certificate and the Report of the Ossification Test in support of his plea of being a juvenile.

It was found that the Courts had rightly not relied upon date of birth certificate which was granted on November 19, 2014 as it was obtained after filing of the application and was registered many years after the birth and not immediately or within the prescribed time period as per Section 8(1)(a) and 10(1)(i) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

A perusal of the school leaving certificate showed that it was issued in September 2014 by Principal of Adarsh Siksha Sadan, Village Kheri, Dudadhari, though the school had shifted to Village Pinna in the year 2009-2010.

"It is unclear and amusing as to how a certificate be issued by a particular school which has been shifted to another village. This makes the process of issuance of certificate doubtful....", the Court said.

Referring to the ossification test report, the court held that it varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case. 

Dr. Rajeev Chauhan, Member of the Medical Board in his cross-examination had admitted that a man with the age of 30 to 32 years would also find the same fusion as found in a man who has crossed the age of 22 years.

Keeping in view the said statement, the court held that the conclusion of the Medical Board that the appellant was 23 to 24 years cannot be said to be conclusive or helpful to determine the age of the appellant to be less than 18 years on the date of commission of offence.

With regard to such observations, the bench found the view taken by the High Court to be a possible view in law which did not call for any interference in the present appeal. 

Cause Title: Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary vs State of Haryana & Anr