Pradeep Oraon @ Maghu v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Madhav Oraon
Case Details
1 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 Pradeep Oraon @ Maghu ..... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Madhav Oraon …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP : : ----- 7/15.02.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. At the outset, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that on earlier occasion, the notice was sent to the OP No. 2 of the present case, but as per the service report, it appears from the record that the OP No.2 has died about 08 to 09 years ago as per the service report submitted by the process server of the Civil Court, Gumla, which has been duly certified by the Nazir, Civil Court, Gumla and the same report has been received from the judge in- charge of the Civil Court, Gumla, which is available on record. 3. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-I,
Facts
Gumla in Misc. Criminal Application No. 15 of 2019, arising out of S.T. Case No. 388 of 2018, in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2003 dated 26.11.2003, registered under Section 302/324/307/34 of the IPC and under sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act, whereby and where under, the learned court below has dismissed the 2 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 application preferred by the petitioner for declaring him juvenile as per school admission register produced by the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegation as per the prosecution case is that informant’s cousin Pradeep Oraon S/o Son of Late Bali Ram Oraon, resident of village Purnadih, P.S. – Kurumgarh (Chainpur), District- Gumla along with some unknown persons has killed the father of the informant and injured the mother of the informant seriously by alleging that they were involved in the practicing of witch craft (black magic). 5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is quite innocent and he has not committed any offence and during the course of the pending of the criminal proceeding, this petitioner has made an application before the learned court below for declaring him Juvenile under section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act. 6. Further it has been submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the admission register of the petitioner in the Rajkiyakrit Kanya Utkramit Madhy Vidyalay, Rohadih as 17.10.1986, but this document has not been proved by the witnesses witness No. 1 Jagannath Munda, who has been examined on behalf of the petitioner because of overwriting. 7. The other document has also been brought on record by the petitioner, which was the AADHAR Card and according to the AADHAR Card, the date of birth mentioned is 01.01.1991 and further 3 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 one another document has also been brought on record by the petitioner, that is the admission register of the petitioner of class-VII of Saint Peter Ucch Vidyalay, Tonga, where the date of birth is written as 09.01.1998. 8. It has further been submitted that the learned Court below, although has discussed all these documents including the date of the birth written in the admission register of class-1 of Rajkiykrit Kanya Utkramit Madhya Vidyalay, i.e. 17.10.1986, the date of birth written in admission register of class-VII in Saint Peter High School, Tonga as 09.01.1988 and the date of birth written in the AADHAR card as 01.01.1991 and the learned court below did not determine the age of the petitioner for the declaration of the age of the petitioner on the date of commission of the offence and had rejected the prayer of the petitioner, without referring the matter to the medical board, in view of the fact that when there are three kinds of date of birth as has been written in the school admission registers and AADHAR card, then the matter must be sent to medical board or a medical board must be constituted before rejecting the application made on behalf of the petitioner for determining the age of the petitioner, either to declaring him a Juvenile or not, but this has not done so by the learned Court below and therefore it is prayed that the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 is fit to be set-aside with a direction to the learned Court below to constitute a medical board for determining the age of the 4 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 petitioner, in view of the various dates of birth as mentioned in the three documents of the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the documents itself prima facie satisfy the court in order to determine the age of the juvenile, who is claiming himself to be a Juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence and for this he must produce the documents as referred under sub Rule 3 of Rule 12, but in the present case, it appears that the 7 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 documents, which have been produced are vague and not clear because of the fact that the three documents are indicating three dates of birth of the petitioner and therefore under facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the ends of justice to constitute the medical board in order to determine the age of the petitioner on the date of the commission of the occurrence. 16. In the backdrop and in the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, it is found just and fair to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2019. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla is set-aside with a direction to hold proper enquiry into the matter, inter alia to constitute the medical board consisting of at least three experts for medical examination and determining the age of the petitioner, based on the medical test and examination. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of with the direction to the learned court below as above. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below to comply the order. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Arguments
9. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that it was an obligation on the part of the petitioner to bring on record the authentic document, and which should be proved by the maker of the document, but the petitioner has hopelessly failed in order to prove it. 10. It has further been submitted by learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that no authentic document has been brought on record by this petitioner and the three kinds of documents, which have been brought on record by this petitioner as; one, the AADHAR card, where the date of birth was 01.01.1991, second, the class-1 register, where the date of birth of the petitioner is written as 17.10.1986 and the third, as per the class-7 register, the date of birth is written as 09.01.1988 and thus all the documents relating to his age (date of birth) submitted by the petitioner were false and fabricated documents produced on behalf of the petitioner and when the teachers of the concerned schools were called in order to prove the documents, none of them have given statement about the authenticity of the documents, which were produced by the petitioner for the determination of the age and it has also been pointed out that the witnesses, whose depositions were recorded during the course of the enquiry of the age of the petitioner, they had categorically stated that 5 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 there was overwriting in the admission registers with respect to the age of the petitioner in class-1 and the class-7 registers and therefore their authenticity could not be proved and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner and accordingly, it is submitted there is no legal point to interfere in this impugned order, but the learned APP did not deny the fact that several documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioner, indicating the three dates of birth of the petitioner, but the learned Court below did not constitute the medical board in order to come to the concrete finding with respect to the age of the petitioner as to whether, he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence or not? 11. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 12. From the impugned order, it is manifest that the petitioner has brought three kinds of documents on the record in order to determine the age of the petitioner for the purpose of declaring him Juvenile on the date of the occurrence and the said documents are AADHAR card, admission register of class-I and admission register of class-7. 13. Further, it appears that as per AADHAR card, his date of birth is 01.01.1991, as per the admission register of class-1, his date of birth is 17.10.1986 and as per the admission register of class-7, the date of birth of the petitioner is 09.01.1988, where overwriting has been found and as such there were contradictions with the date of birth in class-1 and in class-7. 6 Cr. Revision No.992 of 2019 14. It appears that in view of the aforesaid facts, learned courts must have proceed to constitute a medical board comprising at least three experts for the determination of the age of the petitioner, vis-à-vis the documentary evidences, which have been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner in order to determine the age of the petitioner on the date of the commission of the occurrence, i.e. 26.11.2003 for the ends of justice, but from the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Court below did not take any steps to determine the age of the petitioner on the date of the commission of the occurrence that is 26.11.2023 and simply rejected the prayer of the petitioner to determine the age, since the documents for age as submitted by the petitioner were not convincing and not inspiring any confidence and therefore the learned Court below was under obligation to constitute a medical board comprising of at least three experts on the subject for determining the age on the basis of the medical test and examination, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan versus State of Uttrachanl reported in (2000) 15 SCC 259, as cited by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 15. It is settled principal of law by a number of decisions of the