Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gangaraju @ Raju, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 18.9.2019 passed by the LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-55) sitting in the Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District in Spl. C.C.No.161/2015. The impugned order dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 7(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). The case of the prosecution was that the mother of the victim filed a missing complaint alleging that the accused had eloped with her minor daughter. Investigation led to the recovery of the accused and victim from Andhra Pradesh. After recording the victim's statement and completing investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused then filed an application under Section 7(2) of the JJ Act claiming that he was aged about 15 years 9 months 19 days on the date of the alleged incident. He produced a xerox copy of the transfer certificate issued by Z.P. Boys High School, Gorantla in support of his claim. The trial court dismissed the application without considering the document. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the transfer certificate is a prima facie evidence of the accused's age and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing the trial court to give an opportunity to the prosecution to rebut the evidence and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Determination of Age - Section 7(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - The accused filed an application claiming juvenility based on a transfer certificate from Z.P. Boys High School, Gorantla showing his age as 15 years 9 months 19 days on the date of the incident. The trial court dismissed the application without considering the document. The High Court held that the transfer certificate is a prima facie evidence and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding his age. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the prosecution to rebut the evidence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-accused is entitled to be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 based on the transfer certificate showing his age as 15 years 9 months 19 days on the date of the alleged incident.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.9.2019, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court was directed to give an opportunity to the prosecution to rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2000
- Section 7(2)
- determination of age
- benefit of doubt to accused
- school transfer certificate as prima facie evidence
