SIKANDER MAHTOversusTUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN ANSARI & ANR.

                   [2014] 3 S.C.R. 369


                   SIKANDER MAHTO                           A
                            v.
   TUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN
                   ANSARI & ANR.
         (Criminal Appeal No; 511 of 2014)
                                                            B
                  FEBRUARY 27, 2014
    [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

   JUVENILE JUSTICE CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN ACT, 2000:                                         c
     Claim of juvenility - Offences punishable u/ss 376 and
3021201 /PC - Trial court holding the accused not a juvenile
and the school certificate produced by him, as forged - High
Court on the basis of medical report holding him as juvenile 0
- Held: The evidence i.e. the record of the two schools
produced by complainant and Principals of two schools before
Supreme Court, established that accused was not a juvenile
on the date of occurrence - Order of High Court set aside and
that of trial court restored - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 and E
3021201 - Evidence -Evidence led before Supreme Court in
appeal.

     The respondent was prosecuted for commission of
offences punishable u/s 376 and 302/201 IPC. He
produced before the trial court a certificate issued by F
Government Primary Urdu School showing him a juvenile
on the date of occurrence. The trial court held the
certificate as a forged one and sent the respondent for
medical examination. The medical report indicated the
accused to be of 17 years of age on the date of G
occurrence. The trial court did not accept the claim of
accused for juvenility. However, the High Court declared
him to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence.

                           369                              H
    370      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A      In the instant appeal, the complainant produced two
  certificates, one by the Government Primary Urdu School,
  showing that the accused was never admitted in that
  school, and another of a different Government Primary
  School showing the admission of the accused in the
B school and his date of birth according to which the
  accused was of 21 years of age on the date of
  occurrence. The Court summoned Principals of both the
  Schools. They proved the two certificates respectively.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
          HELD:

        The relevant records placed before this Court by the
    Principals of the two schools pursuant to the order dated
0   27.01.2014, indicate that the claim of the first respondent
    to be a juvenile remains unsubstantiated and, in fact, the
    rece>rds of the school where he was enrolled would
    indicate that his date of birth is 28.11.1985. Properly
    calculated with reference to the date of the alleged crime,
E   the first respondent was aged about 21 years on the
    relevant date and therefore he was not a juvenile.
    Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is set
    aside and that passed by the trial court restored. [para 9
    & 1O] [373-0-F]

F       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 511 of 2014.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2008 of the High
    Court of Patna Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2008.
G      Mohit Kumar Shah, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan
    Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
 SIKANDER MAHTO v. TUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ 371
TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN ANSARI [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
      2. The first respondent Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna A
Mian @ Mobin Ansari was committed to the Court of Sessions
to face trial for offences under Sections 302/201 and 376 of
the Indian .Penal Code. The first respondent filed an application
claiming to be a juvenile and in support thereof he had enclosed
a certificate issued by the Government Primary Urdu School, B
Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block Mainatand wherein his date of
birth was mentioned as 15.01.1991. The date of occurrence
of the offences alleged in the present case is 16.11.2006.

      3. The learned Trial Court, for reasons not very clearly
stated, recorded the finding that the certificate produced by the C
first respondent was a forged one. Accordingly, the first
respondent was sent for medical examination by a Board.
Though the report of the Board was to the effect that the first
respondent was 17 years of age, the learned Trial Court took
the view that the said opinion would admit the possibility of a D
variation of 2 years. Consequently, the learned Trial Court by
order dated 24.12.2007 refused to accept the claim of juvenility
raised on behalf of the first respondent.

     4. Aggrieved, the first respondent moved the Patna High          E
Court. By order dated 14.11.2008 the High Court interfered with
the order of the learned Trial Court and allowed the application
of the first respondent herein declaring him to be a juvenile and
to be of sixteen and a half years of age on the date of alleged
occurrence. Challenging the aforesaid finding of the High Court,      F
the complainant, wh,o is the father of the victim of the crime, has
approached this Court.

     5. A reply has been filed on behalf of the first respondent
in the present appeal wherein reliance has, once again, been
placed on the school certificate issued by the Government Urdu G
School Shekhwa, Basantpur, Distt. East Champaran reference
to which has been made earlier. The first respondent in his
reply has also contended that the report of the medical
examination clearly indicates that he was a minor on the
relevant date and that there is no reason as to why the said H
    372      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A medical report should not be accepted.

         6. The appellant has been allowed by this Court leave to
    bring on record certain documents which, according to the
    appellant, have a significant bearing to the issues arising in the
    present case.
8
        7. The first document that has been brought on the record
  of the present appeal is a letter/certificate dated 3.4.2013
  issued by the Principal, Government Primary Urdu School,
  Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block-Mainatand wherein it is
C mentioned that no student having the name and particulars of
  the first respondent had ever studied in the school in question
  and that the certificate issued in the name of the school is a
  forged document. The second document is another certificate
  issued by the Principal, Government Primary School, Purbi
D Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar which
  states that the particulars of the first respondent are entered in
  the records of the said school and that his date of birth as
  mentioned in the school admission register is 28.11.1985. As
  the controversy arising in the present case is capable of being
E resolved on the basis of the aforesaid two documents, reference
  to any other document would be superfluous and hence is
  avoided.

         8. The first respondent has not filed any affidavit or
    objections denying the veracity of the two certificates referred
F   to above. However, as the Court had to be satisfied with the
    authenticity of the said two documents, on 27.01.2014 the
    following order was passed.
          "In order to find out the age of Respondent No.1-accused
G         on the date of occurrence, we direct the Principal,
          Government Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur,
          Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar and Principal,
          Government Primary School, Purbi Paukuahwa, Block-
          Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar to appear alongwith
H         the connected original record before this Court on 24th
 SIKANDER MAHTO v. TUNNA @ TUNNU MIAN @ 373
TUNNA MIAN @ MOBIN ANSARI [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
       February, 2014.                                           A
       List on 24th February, 2014"

       9. Pursuant thereto the Principal of the two schools
appeared in Court today alongwith the records in original. The
said records would indicate that there is no record of the first 8
 respondent being enrolled or having studied in the Government
                 '                              .
 Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block-Mainatand.
 From the records of the Government Primary School, Purbi
Paukuahwa, Block-Mainatand, West Champaran, Bihar it is
evident that the first respondenthad enrolled himself in the said C
school on 08.01.1996 and his date of birth is recorded in the
admission register as 28.11.1985. The relevant records placed
before this Court by the Principals of the two school$ pursuant
to the order dated 27.01.2014 therefore indicates that the claim
of the first respondent to be a juvenile remains unsubstantiated D
and, in fact, the records of the school where he was enrolled
would indicate that his date of birth is 28.11.1985. Properly
calculated with reference to the date of the alleged crime, the
first respondent was aged about 21 years on the relevant date
and therefore he was not a juvenile.                              E

     10. We, therefore, cannot sustain the order dated
14.11.2008 passed by the High Court. In the result, we allow
this appeal and set aside the said order dated 14.11.2008
passed by the High Court and restore the order dated
24.12.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court.

R.P.                                         Appeal allowed.