Patna High Court – Orders
Praveen Khatoon vs The State Of Bihar on 31 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 971 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2017 Thana- BUXAR District- Buxar
======================================================
Praveen Khatoon Son of Feroz Khan village- Badki Sarimpur Police Station
-Buxar Industrial District- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav,
Advocate.
Mr. Ritesh Abhishek,
Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak,
Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Asha Kumari,
APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
4 31-07-2025
1. The instant revision under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, challenges an order, dated 6th of September, 2024,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court
at Buxar, upon an application filed on behalf of the
petitioner with a prayer that the petitioner was a juvenile on
the date of commission of offence.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with
her other family members are charge-sheeted accused
persons in connection with Buxar Town P. S. Case No. 78
of 2017, registered on 28th of February, 2017.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
2/15
3. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that as daily habit,
the mother of the informant with another lady went to the
bank of the river for morning walk through the bridge on
the river. When, she was walking, on 22 nd of February, 2017
at about 07.00 a.m., the petitioner along with other accused
persons came in a group being armed with knives in their
hands and started assaulting the mother of the informant
with the help of the knives all over her body, causing her
death.
4. After investigation of the case, police submitted
charge-sheet and trial of the case is pending before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Buxar. On
29th of August, 2024, the petitioner submitted an
application, stating, inter alia, that on the date of
occurrence, she was a juvenile, as her date of birth was 20th
of April, 2002. In support of her contention, the petitioner
filed one birth certificate, issued on 31st of January, 2014,
registering her date of birth as 20th of April, 2002. In
support of the date of birth of the petitioner and veracity of
the birth certificate, the parents of the petitioner also filed
affidavits before the Trial Court.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
3/15
5. On 5th of September, 2024, the informant filed a
rejoinder against the above-mentioned petition, alleging,
inter alia, that in the year 2016, on the basis of a complaint
filed by the present petitioner, a case under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code was registered against one Md.
Javed. In the said case, the petitioner claimed herself to be
aged about 20 years at the relevant point of time. During
investigation of the case, statement of the petitioner was
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and she stated at
the relevant point of time that she was aged about 20 years.
In order to ascertain her age, ossification test was also
conducted and the Medical Officer found her age to be
between 19-20 years. The mother of the petitioner was also
deposed where she said on oath that the victim was aged
about 22-23 years.
6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Opposite Party No. 2 by filing a supplementary affidavit,
stating above-mentioned facts that the application filed by
the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
2nd Court at Buxar, is false, concocted and based on a
manufactured birth certificate because the birth certificate
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
4/15
was issued after 12 years of her birth without following
mandatory provision of enquiry by the Sub-divisional
Officer or the Block Development Officer. The birth
certificate also does not bear the counter signature of the
Block Development Officer. Therefore, the said birth
certificate cannot be taken into consideration.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the
petitioner and the Private Opposite Party No. 2 as well as
the learned APP.
8. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 states: –
“(2) In case a person alleged to
have committed an offence claims before a
court other than a Board, that the person is
a child or was a child on the date of
commission of the offence, or if the court
itself is of the opinion that the person was a
child on the date of commission of the
offence, the said court shall make an
inquiry, take such evidence as may be
necessary (but not an affidavit) to
determine the age of such person, and shall
record a finding on the matter, stating the
age of the person as nearly as may be:
Provided that such a claim may be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
5/15raised before any court and it shall be
recognised at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such a claim shall
be determined in accordance with the
provisions contained in this Act and the
rules made thereunder even if the person
has ceased to be a child on or before the
date of commencement of this Act.”
9. In Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2022) 8 SCC 602, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
laid down the guidelines relating to the procedure followed
by a Court when a person claims juvenility at any stage of
procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 33
of the aforesaid judgement held as hereunder: –
“33. What emerges on a
cumulative consideration of the aforesaid
catena of judgments is as follows:
33.1. A claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage of a criminal
proceeding, even after a final disposal of
the case. A delay in raising the claim of
juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection
of such claim. It can also be raised for the
first time before this Court.
33.2. An application claiming
juvenility could be made either before the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
6/15court or the JJ Board.
33.2.1. When the issue of
juvenility arises before a court, it would be
under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9
of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is
brought before a committee or JJ Board,
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.
33.2.2. If an application is filed
before the court claiming juvenility, the
provision of sub-section (2) of Section 94
of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be
applied or read along with sub-section (2)
of Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the
purpose of recording a finding stating the
age of the person as nearly as may be.
33.2.3. When an application
claiming juvenility is made under Section
94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board
when the matter regarding the alleged
commission of offence is pending before a
court, then the procedure contemplated
under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would
apply. Under the said provision if the JJ
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Board shall
undertake the process of age determination
by seeking evidence and the age recorded
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
7/15by the JJ Board to be the age of the person
so brought before it shall, for the purpose
of the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true
age of that person. Hence the degree of
proof required in such a proceeding before
the JJ Board, when an application is filed
seeking a claim of juvenility when the trial
is before the criminal court concerned, is
higher than when an inquiry is made by a
court before which the case regarding the
commission of the offence is pending (vide
Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015).
33.3. That when a claim for
juvenility is raised, the burden is on the
person raising the claim to satisfy the court
to discharge the initial burden. However,
the documents mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)
(i), (ii) and (iii) of the JJ Rules, 2007 made
under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of
Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, shall be
sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the
court. On the basis of the aforesaid
documents a presumption of juvenility may
be raised.
33.4. The said presumption is
however not conclusive proof of the age of
juvenility and the same may be rebutted by
contra evidence let in by the opposite side.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
8/15
33.5. That the procedure of an
inquiry by a court is not the same thing as
declaring the age of the person as a
juvenile sought before the JJ Board when
the case is pending for trial before the
criminal court concerned. In case of an
inquiry, the court records a prima facie
conclusion but when there is a
determination of age as per sub-section (2)
of Section 94 of the 2015 Act, a declaration
is made on the basis of evidence. Also the
age recorded by the JJ Board shall be
deemed to be the true age of the person
brought before it. Thus, the standard of
proof in an inquiry is different from that
required in a proceeding where the
determination and declaration of the age of
a person has to be made on the basis of
evidence scrutinised and accepted only if
worthy of such acceptance.
33.6. That it is neither feasible
nor desirable to lay down an abstract
formula to determine the age of a person. It
has to be on the basis of the material on
record and on appreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties in each case.
33.7. This Court has observed
that a hypertechnical approach should not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
9/15
be adopted when evidence is adduced on
behalf of the accused in support of the plea
that he was a juvenile.
33.8. If two views are possible on
the same evidence, the court should lean in
favour of holding the accused to be a
juvenile in borderline cases. This is in
order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ
Act, 2015 is made applicable to the
juvenile in conflict with law. At the same
time, the court should ensure that the JJ
Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to
escape punishment after having committed
serious offences.
33.9. That when the
determination of age is on the basis of
evidence such as school records, it is
necessary that the same would have to be
considered as per Section 35 of the
Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or
official document maintained in the
discharge of official duty would have
greater credibility than private documents.
33.10. Any document which is in
consonance with public documents, such as
matriculation certificate, could be accepted
by the court or the JJ Board provided such
public document is credible and authentic
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
10/15
as per the provisions of the Evidence Act
viz. Section 35 and other provisions.
33.11. Ossification test cannot be
the sole criterion for age determination
and a mechanical view regarding the age
of a person cannot be adopted solely on the
basis of medical opinion by radiological
examination. Such evidence is not
conclusive evidence but only a very useful
guiding factor to be considered in the
absence of documents mentioned in Section
94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.”
10. Section 94 of the said Act lays down the
procedure regarding presumption and determination of age.
The provision runs thus: –
“94. Presumption and
determination of age.
(1) Where, it is obvious to the
Committee or the Board, based on the
appearance of the person brought before it
under any of the provisions of this Act
(other than for the purpose of giving
evidence) that the said person is a child,
the Committee or the Board shall record
such observation stating the age of the
child as nearly as may be and proceed
with the inquiry under section 14 or
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
11/15section 36, as the case may be, without
waiting for further confirmation of the
age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Committee
or the Board, as the case may be, shall
undertake the process of age
determination, by seeking evidence by
obtaining-
(i) the date of birth certificate
from the school, or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by
a corporation or a municipal authority or
a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
and (ii) above, age shall be determined by
an ossification test or any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the
Board:
Provided such age determination
test conducted on the order of the
Committee or the Board shall be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
12/15completed within fifteen days from the date
of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the
true age of that person.”
11. In the instant case, the Opposite Party No. 2
raised a doubt against the age of the petitioner on the
ground that she herself deposed that she was aged about 20
years in 2016. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 lays down the
detailed provision when there is reasonable ground for
doubt as to whether a person is a child or not.
12. In that case, the Board is under obligation to
undertake the process of age determination by seeking
evidence by obtaining: –
(i) the date of birth certificate
from the school, or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by
a corporation or a municipal authority or
a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
13/15and (ii) above, age shall be determined by
an ossification test or any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the
Board.
13. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 empowers the exclusive power to the
Board to determine the age of a person if at any stage of
trial, he / she claims juvenility on the date of commission of
offence.
14. In a subsequent decision, in the case of
Thirumoorthy v. State represented by the Inspector of
Police, reported in 2024 INSC 247, the same principle has
been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
15. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner also refers to another decision in the case of
Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine 723, where the appellant filed an
application raising the claim of juvenility based on a
horoscope before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The
said application was rejected. Further, before the Trial
Court, the birth certificate was presented and the plea of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
14/15
determination of age was raised. The learned Trial Court
rejected the said prayer by observing that the said certificate
was not presented along with the application filed earlier
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
16. On the above factual circumstances, it is held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that proper enquiry in
accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 or the JJ
Act, 2015 was not carried out so to consider the prayer
made by the appellant to be treated as juvenile on the date
of the incident even though the plea was raised at the
earliest opportunity. It can be said without a cavil of doubt
that the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant could not
have been thrown out without conducting proper inquiry.
17. In the instant case, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Buxar committed the same
error. He ought to have sent the application filed by the
petitioner to the J. J. Board for conducting enquiry under
Section 9(2) read with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
18. The Trial Court failed to follow the direction
of the Statute.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.971 of 2024(4) dt.31-07-2025
15/15
19. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 6 th of
September, 2024, passed by the learned 2 nd Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Buxar, is incorrect, illegal and
invalid.
20. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.
21. The instant revision is allowed.
22. The Trial Court is directed to send the copy of
application filed by the petitioner on 29 th of August, 2024 to
the Juvenile Justice Board for conducting proper enquiry as
to the age of the petitioner in accordance with the
provisions contained in Section 9(2) read with Section 94 of
the J. J. Act, 2015.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
U
[ad_1]
Source link