The Bombay High Court in the case observed and has held that an accused claiming to be a juvenile need not produce a Date of Birth, DOB certificate from his ‘first’ school to determine his age and a certificate from any school he attended can be submitted under the new Juvenile Justice Act 2015, JJ Act.
The bench headed by Justice SM Modak in the case observed and has set aside the order of trial court that adjudicated the accused’s plea based on the old JJ Act and Rules.
In the present case, the FIR was registered for kidnapping and rape, as well as under section of 4 and section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the accused claimed that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence in 2018.
It has been asked by the session court that the accused to submit documents about his date of birth as per Section 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Rules, 2007, requiring a certificate from the school first attended.
The bench of Justice Modak in the case observed that although the trial Court considered Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules, now 2015 Act and 2016 Rules are enacted. So, earlier the rules do not exist.
The court in the case also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in the case Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the High Court stated that what was provided under Rule 12 of the JJ Rules 2007 has been provided under Section 94 of the JJ Act 2015.
It has also been stated that Section 94(2)(i) only refers to ‘date of birth certificate from the school” and does not insist on the first school certificate.’
The bench of Justice Modak in the case observed and has held that the Section 9(2) of the Act talks about conducting an enquiry by the Court by taking the evidence and as per the proviso, such enquiry has to be conducted as per the Rules. Therefore, the court stated that Section 94(2) of the 2015 Act refers to date of birth certificate from the school. It no more says about second school.
The court quashed the Sessions Court order and has remanded the matter back for an inquiry by the trial court under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has granted the accused the liberty to ask his second school to produce any certificate obtained from the first school.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea.
