Patna High Court – Orders
Rajan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1161 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2017 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar
======================================================
Rajan Kumar Son of Naresh Sahni, Resident of Village- Ward No.1, Paharpur,
Police Station- Tariani, District- Sheohar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kaushalya Devi Wife of Dinesh Sahni Resident of Ward No.-1, Paharpur,
Police Station - Tariani, District - Sheohar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
For Res. No.2 : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
19 14-07-2025
I.A. No.1 of 2024
This is an application under Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with
Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of
2000’) filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant has prayed for declaring him a
juvenile and to pass a consequential order as may be passed as
per the provisions of the Act of 2000. A direction has been
sought for release of the appellant on the ground that he has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
2/13
already undergone much more than the maximum statutory
punishment i.e. three years in incarceration.
3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment
dated 20.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned
judgment) in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2018 arising out of Tariyani
P.S. Case No.165 of 2017 for the offences punishable under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) read with
Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act‘). The learned trial
court has ordered the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In case of default in payment
of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
date of birth of the appellant is 03.02.2004 as per the record and
the same would appear from the marksheet-cum-certificate
dated 20.01.2023 and migration-cum-transfer certificate dated
20.01.2023 issued under the signature of the Director
(Evaluation). In judicial custody, the appellant has passed the
secondary school examination of National Institute of Open
Schooling (in short ‘NIOS’) in the year 2022. A copy of the
certificate issued by the NIOS which is an autonomous
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
3/13
institution under the Ministry of Education, Government of
India showing the date of birth of the appellant as 03.02.2004
has been enclosed with the interlocutory application. On the
strength of the certificate it has been submitted that on the date
of occurrence i.e. 01.10.2017 the appellant was a juvenile aged
about 13 years 8 months 4 days only.
5. It is contended that a person below 18 years of age
at the time of occurrence can claim benefit under the Act of
2000 at any time at any stage.
6. It is important to note that in paragraph ‘2’ of the
application a statement has been made as under:-
“That the appellant has not filed any such
application earlier before the Hon’ble Court by
seeking verification of his claim of juvenility and
consequential orders as per the provisions of
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, against the impugned
judgment and order in this subject matter.”
7. In course of hearing of this application on various
dates, learned counsel for the appellant maintained his stand that
the appellant has never raised this issue of juvenility and for the
first time it is being raised in appeal and this appellate court
must consider it at this stage.
8. The law being settled that a plea of juvenility may
be raised at any stage, this Court took the statement of learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
4/13
counsel for the appellant as a bonafide statement and heard him
at length. The informant has been added as respondent no.2 and
notice has been served upon respondent no.2.
9. While considering the the plea of the appellant, this
Court vide its order dated 03.09.2024 called for a response from
the Director of National Institute of Open Schooling . At the
same time, learned counsel for the appellant took time to seek
instruction and place on record the relevant information such as
when did the appellant take admission in the NIOS and on what
basis the date of birth has been recorded there.
10. The hearing on the application continued. The
NIOS informed that the appellant was admitted in the NIOS in
October-November, 2021 and has passed the secondary
examination of NIOS. In the records of the NIOS the date of
birth of the appellant is 03.02.2004. It transpired from the
affidavit of the Regional Director of the NIOS that while the
appellant was imprisoned in S.K.R.V. Central Jail, Muzaffapur,
he had registered himself with the NIOS for the secondary
course for the October-November NIOS Public Examination in
the year 2021. The appellant was issued an identity card for the
academic year 2021-22 (Stream-1, Block-2) and the date of
birth of the appellant has been mentioned on the basis of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
5/13
Aadhar Card of the appellant.
11. It would further appear that keeping in view the
scheme of Section 94 read with sub-section (2) of Section 9 of
the Act of 2000 when this Court called upon learned counsel for
the appellant to inform as to whether the appellant was admitted
in any school, learned counsel for the appellant made a
statement that the appellant was admitted in Sathu Middle
School, Paharpur, District-Sheohar. However, in view of the
statement of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
called upon the Principal of Sathu Middle School, Paharpur,
District-Sheohar to appear with the school admission register to
testify before this Court.
12. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the
Headmaster of Sathu Middle School, Paharpur had appeared
with the admission register. The Headmaster of the school
produced the admission register in which it transpired that the
appellant was admitted in the school on 05.02.2004 and on the
same date his elder brother Babloo Kumar was also admitted in
the said school in Class-I. The name of both the brothers were
mentioned at serial no.22 and 23 respectively. The date of birth
of Babloo was shown as 03.09.1998 whereas the date of birth of
the appellant was shown as 13.03.1999. The register, however,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
6/13
does not show that on what basis the date of birth has been
mentioned in the register. This Court noted that there seems to
be a difference of only six and half months. In fact the then
Headmaster of the school Mr. Dinesh Baitha has upon looking
into the school admission register admitted this fact and he has
further admitted that at the time of recording of date of birth, he
had not taken any basis of the date of birth from the parent of
the appellant. The present Principal of the school has stated that
in admission register of Class-I of the year 2004 he could not
find the name of the appellant.
13. This Court has noted in its order dated 28.10.2024
that in paragraph ’12’ of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the
appellant, it is stated that the deponent (father of the appellant)
has six children, the elder one is the daughter, namely Kavita
Devi (married), the second one is the daughter, namely, Savita
Devi (married), third one is the son, namely Binod Kumar,
fourth one is the son namely, Pujan Kumar, fifth one is this
appellant namely, Rajan Kumar and the youngest son is one
Ram Brat. The age of the children were, however, not stated in
the affidavit. At this stage, this Court directed the Circle Officer,
Tariyani to verify all the records relating to age of the children
and submit a report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
7/13
14. The Circle Officer submitted a report in which it is
stated that in the affidavit filed by the father of the appellant
mentioned the date of birth of his children and according to him
while the third son namely, Babloo Kumar was born on
01.01.1998 as per Aadhar card, the fourth one is son, namely
Pujan Kumar whose date of birth is 01.01.2000 and the fifth one
is this appellant namely, Rajan Kumar whose date of birth is
03.02.2004 which is as per the certificate of the NIOS.
15. The entire aforementioned exercises were
undertaken by this Court only under a bonafide belief that the
appellant is raising this issue of juvenility for the first time
before this Court in this appeal but the facts which appeared at
this stage have shaken the confidence of this Court as it has
been found that by filing the present interlocutory application,
an attempt has been made to obtain an order from this Court by
suppressing the facts which are matters of record. Learned
counsel for the appellant never brought to the notice of this
Court that the issue of juvenility was earlier raised in course of
trial and the same has been decided by a reasoned order dated
29.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional District-cum-
Special Judge, 1st Court, Sheohar in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2018.
All through his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
8/13
maintained his plea that the issue of juvenility was never raised
earlier.
16. On its own, this Court took the records of the
learned trial court and perused the various orders passed by the
learned trial court. It has been found that on 27.03.2018 an
application was filed on behalf of the accused claiming
juvenility on the date of occurrence i.e. 07.10.2017. A request
was made to the learned trial court to call for the records of
Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Paharpur for the year 2009 which is
the first admission register according to the accused. The
learned trial court initiated an enquiry in course of age
determination process of the appellant. The statement of the
father (Enquiry Witness No.1) would show that he claimed in
his statement that the date of birth of Rajan is 17.03.2003 and he
is his 4th child. He has clearly stated that there is one son and
two daughters who are elder to Rajan.
17. Nagina Devi (Enquiry Witness No.2) who is the
mother of the accused Rajan deposed that there are three
children who are elder to this son Rajan. She has stated that his
date of birth is of the year 2003.
18. The learned trial court having examined the entire
materials which came in course of enquiry considered the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
9/13
statement of the enquiry witnesses as also medical report which
was available on the record suggesting the age of Rajan Kumar
in between 18-19 years. By a detailed reasoned order, the
learned trial court held that the accused cannot be declared
juvenile rather he comes in the category of adult and is being
tried as an adult. The court specifically held that the documents
relating to the date of birth have been suppressed. The order
dated 29.05.2018 is being reproduced hereunder for a ready
reference:-
“¼vkns’k½
f’kogj Fkkuk dkaM la[;k&165@17 ¼fopkj.k la[;k&3@18½
fnukad & 29-5-18
1- ,d vkosnu fnukad & 27-3-18 vfHk;qä jktu dqekj dh vksj ls bl vk’k; dk
fn;k x;k fd bl eqdnek dh ?kVuk frfFk&7-10-17 vkSj vfHk;qä dh tUe frfFk&17-2-
2003 gSA vkosnd dk çFke ukekadu oxZ ,d esa jktdh; e/; fo|ky; igkM+iqj]
Fkkuk&rfj;kuh esa o”kZ 2009 esa gqvk Fkk vkSj ?kVuk fd frfFk dks mldh mez 14 o”kZ 8
eghuk 10 fnu Fkh tks fd og fd’kksj ¼ukckfyx dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS½ bl lanHkZ esa
vfHkys[k ek¡xkdj ,oa tk¡p dj mls ukckfyx dh Js.kh esa j[krs gq, fopkj.k fd;k tk;sA
2- ;g okn esa vfHk;qä varxZr /kkjk 376 Hkk0n0foå ,oa 4] 8 i‚Dlks ,DV ds rgr
fopkj.k ds fy, py jgk Fkk blh chp vfHk;qä ds ukckfyx gksus ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu
fn;k x;k fd çLrqr okn ikWDlksa vf/kfu;e ls tqM+k gqvk gS ftldh /kkjk&34 esa vfHk;qä
ds ukckfyx gksus ds laca/k esa bl fo’ks”k U;k;ky; dks Hkh fd’kksj U;k;ky; dh vf/kfu;e
2000 ds micU/kksa ds v/khu dk;Zokgh dh tkuh gS bls bl U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qä ds
ukckfyx gksus ds laca/k esa vfHk;qä dh vksj ls çLrqr rhu lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; tk¡p ds
nkSjku çLrqr fd;k x;kA
tgk¡ tk¡p lk{kh la[;k&1 us tks fd vfHk;qä dk firk gS mlus vius csVs dh mez
15 o”kZ vkSj tUe frfFk& 17-3-2003 crk;k gS A ftjg esa U;k;ky; esa iqNs tkus ij dgk
fd mlds tUe dk dksbZ dkxt ugh gSA
blh rjg tk¡p lk{kh la[;k & 2 us Hkh tks vfHk;qä dh ek¡ gS us tUe dk o”kZ
2003 vkSj eghuk Qkxqu dk crk;k gS vkSj yM+ds ¼vfHk;qä½ dh mez 15 o”kZ crkbZ gSA
U;k;ky; }kjk iqNs tkus ij dgh gS fd vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ ds tUe frfFk dk dksbZ
dkxt ugh gS vkSj mls dsoy blh cPps dh frfFk ;kn gSA ;g tUe frfFk mlds ifr }
kjk crk;s x;k gSA
tk¡p lk{kh la[;k&3 tks fd çlwfr Mk;jh gS mlesa vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ dk mez 15
o”kZ crk;k gSA U;k;ky; }kjk iqNs tkus ij mlus Hkh dksbZ dkxt nsus ls budkj fd;k
gSA
vuqla/kku ds nkSjku vfHk;qä dh mez dh tk¡p esfMdy cksMZ }kjk fpfdRlk
inkf/kdkjh f’kogj] }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa mldh mez 18 ls 19 ds chp crkbZ x;h
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
10/13gS A
3- vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ ds vf/koäk dk eq[; dFku gS fd vkonsd ds ek¡&cki vkSj
mlds iSnk djkus okyh nkbZ us crk;k gS fd mldh mez 15 o”kZ dh gS vkSj xk¡o nsgkr esa
cPpk iSnk gksus ds ckn tUe ds laca/k esa dksbZ çek.k ugha j[kk tkrk gS rFkk lkFk gh lkFk
vuqla/kku ds nkSjku esfMdy cksMZ dh fjiksVZ esa mldh mez 17 ls 18 lky crkbZ xbZ gSA
vr% mldh mez yxHkx 15 ls 16 o”kZ gh ekuh tk;sxh vkSj bl vk/kkj ij ¼vfHk;qä½
vkosnd dks ukckfyx ?kksf”kr djrs gq, mlds fopkj.k dks ukckfyx ds rkSj ij fopkfjr
fd;k tk;sA
4- vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA eSa ;g ikrk gw¡ fd ;g okn esa vfHk;qä varxZr
/kkjk&376 Hkk0n0fo0 vkSj 4]8 ikDlks ,DV ds rgr ,d lkr o”khZ; eklwe yM+dh ds lkFk
cykRdkj dkfjr djus dk eq[; vfHk;ksx gS ikDlks ,DV dh /kkjk&34 ds vuqlkj- ¼ckyd
}kjk fdlh vijk/k ds ?kfVr gksus vkSj fo’ks”k U;k;ky; }kjk vk;q dk vo/kkj.kk djus dh
n’kk esa çfØ;k & ¼1½ tgka bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dkbZ vijk/k fdlh ckyd ds }kjk
fd;k tkrk gS ogka ,sls ckyd ij fd’kksj U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½
vf/kfu;e] 2000 ¼ 2000 dk 56½ ds mica/kksa ds v/khu dkjZokbZ dh tk,xhA ¼2½ ;fn
fo’ks”k U;k;ky; ds le{k fdlh dk;Zokgh esa bl laca/k ————-bZ ç’u mBrk gS fd dksbZ
O;fä ckyd gS ;k ugha rks ,sls ç’u dk vo/kkj.k fo’ks”k U;k;ky; }kjk ,sls O;fä dh
vk;q ds ckjs esa Lo;a dk lek/kku djus ds i’pkr~ fd;k tk,xk vkSj og ,sls vo/kkj.kk
ds fy, mlds dkj.kksa dks ys[kc) djsxk ¼3½ fo’ks”k U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k x;k dksbZ
vkns’k ek= i’pkRorhZ bl lcwr ds dkj.k vfof/kekU; ugha le>k tk,xk fd mi/kkjk ¼2½
ds v/khu mlds }kjk ;Fkkvo/kkfjr fdlh O;fä dh vk;q ml O;fä dh lgh vk;q ugha
Fkh A ½
bl lanHkZ esa vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh tUe frfFk dk çek.k i=
nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k esfMdy cksMZ us Hkh vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ dk mez yxHkx 18 ls 19
ds chp crk;k gS vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ ns[kus ls gh 18 ls 19 c”kZ ds chp çrhr gksrk gS
mlds lkFk&lkFk vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ us tc fnukad& 27-3-18 viuk vkosnu fn;k Fkk
mlesa nkok fd;k Fkk fd mldk çFke ukekadu oxZ ,d jktdh; e/; fo|ky; igkM+iqj]
Fkkuk& rfj;kuh esa 2009 esa gqvk Fkk ftlesa mldh tUe frfFk 17-2-2003 jgh gSA
bl lanHkZ esa Hkh dksbZ nLrkost vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ dh vksj ls çLrqr ugha fd;k
x;kA ,slk çrhr gksrk gS fd ;k rks vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ }kjk xyr <ax ls jktdh; e/;
fo|ky; ukekadu ds rF; dks Nqikdj vkosnu esa fn;k gS ;k tkucw>dj O;Ld gksus ds
dkj.k mä nLrkost dks U;k;ky; esa çLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA
mijksä rF;ksa ifjfjfFk;ksa ,oa foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd ¼vfHk;qä½ dks dgha ls
Hkh ukckfyx ¼vO;Ld½ ?kksf”kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr çrhd ugh gksrk gS cfYd og O;Ld
dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj rnuqlkj mlds fopkj.k dh dk;Zokgh py jgh gS vkSj vkosnd
¼vfHk;qä½ dk vkosnu ukckfyx gksus ds laca/k esa [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
g0@&
29-5-18
vij ftyk ,oa lg fo’ks”k U;k;k/kh’k çFke
f’kogjA”
19. It is evident that the order dated 29.05.2018
passed by the learned trial court has attained finality. On a bare
perusal of the entire materials on the record, this Court finds that
the issue of juvenility was raised as back as in the year 2018
which has been settled by the order of the learned trial court,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
11/13
still an attempt has been made to get a declaration of juvenility
from this Court. For this purpose not only a document in the
form of certificate of NIOS showing the date of birth of the
appellant as 03.02.2004 has been produced but even a false
affidavit has been filed that this appellant is the fifth child. By
twisting the facts this Court has been engaged in hearing the
plea of the appellant and thereby precious judicial time of this
Court has been wasted.
20. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that this application seeking plea of juvenility is a frivolous and
fictitious kind of application which is liable to be rejected with a
cost. This Court imposes a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the
appellant for filing this frivolous application and thereby wasted
the judicial time of the Court which shall be deposited with the
Patna High Legal Service Committee within eight weeks from
today.
21. The manner in which this application has been
filed by suppressing the material facts which are evident from
the records of the learned trial court, at least one thing is very
clear that while drafting the application either the learned
counsel for the appellant is very very causal or he knowingly
suppressed these facts.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
12/13
22. When the Court pointed out this to Mr. Niranjan
Kumar, Advocate, Enrollment No.BR-208/2011 and he was
called upon to explain as to how he could file this application
ignoring the materials which are available on the record and
why this matter be not referred to the Bihar State Bar Council to
institute an enquiry into his professional conduct, learned
counsel has submitted at the Bar that he has committed mistake
by not thoroughly going through the records of the trial court
but it was not intentional on his part. Learned counsel has
repeatedly submitted before this Court that the matter is not
required to be referred to the Bihar State Bar Council as he
accepts his mistake and seeks unconditional apology. He has
also submitted that in future, he will be cautious and will not
repeat similar kind of act.
23. In the kind of submissions made by Mr. Niranjan
Kumar, Advocate and the undertaking given by him, this Court
is not passing any order on this point, however, in future he
must be cautious while filing application in Court.
24. Since this Court has noticed that during the
incarceration period the appellant got prepared an Aadhar Card
in which he entered his date of birth as 03.02.2004 and the same
has been accepted by the NIOS as proof of date of birth without
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1161 of 2018(19) dt.14-07-2025
13/13
any verification and realizing that the date of birth entered in the
Aadhar Card had no basis, let a copy of this order be sent to the
Regional Director, NIOS, Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, Rajbansi
Nagar, Patna, Bihar 800001 to take a view on its policy
accepting the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar card
prepared by a convict during the imprisonment period. An
appropriate view be taken in the matter.
25. This application being devoid of merit is
dismissed as regards the plea of juvenility. However, liberty is
reserved to the appellant to file a fresh plea separately, if so
advised, for suspension of his sentence and release on bail in
terms of Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.
26. The school admission register be returned to the
present Principal of the school.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
arvind/-
U