Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah,  J. dismissed the revision application as the order of the Juvenile Justice Board needed no interference.

The petitioner approached the Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan by which the order of the  Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, holding the petitioner to be more than 18 years on the date of occurrence, has been upheld.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, had called for a report of juvenility which opined that the petitioner was 20-21 years in August 2012. it was submitted by the petitioner that on their request before the Juvenile Justice Board that X-ray report and Dental report be also called for determining the age, the Board had sent for it, but in the order passed by it on 30-03-2016, it relied upon the first report holding the petitioner to be more than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. The petitioner also relied on the entry in the school admission register of Class I which was produced in evidence but had not been relied upon by the Board on the ground that the name of the petitioner’s father was not mentioned in the register.

Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP submitted that a report in regard to a number of teeth the petitioner had, which was a relevant factor in determining the age, was brought on record. Such a report was received holding that the petitioner had 32 teeth. Thus, the Board while correlating the first medical report with the fact that the petitioner had 32 teeth had rightly arrived at the conclusion that he was more than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. 27-04-2011.  It was also submitted that the teacher, who had deposed at the time of considering the admission register of Class I, had not stated either the date of birth or the name of the father of the petitioner and had also admitted that entry made in the said register at two places were in different ink.

The Court held that the Appellate Court had rightly not interfered with the order and there were no merits in the present application as the Juvenile Justice Board had correctly appreciated the facts and had given cogent reasons for the same.[Jitendra Mahto v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1908, decided on 04-11-2019]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.