Assam: Gauhati HC sets aside trial court’s rejection of school certificate as age proof

Staff Reporter

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court (HC) set aside an order passed by a trial court, wherein it refused to accept the school certificate of an accused as proof of age for his claim of being a juvenile, observing that there were no other documents to support that fact. Instead, the trial court relied on the testimony of four witnesses.

The single-judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia was hearing an application (Crl.Rev.P./17/2013) under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC challenging the judgement and order dated November 20, 2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 60/2011. The petitioner-accused, in order to establish his date of birth, produced the school certificate, wherein his date of birth was shown as February 15, 1994, putting him below 18 years of age on April 10, 2009.

The trial court had accepted that the school certificate showed the petitioner to be below 18 years of age on April 10, 2009. The court further held that, except for the said certificate, there were no other documents to support that fact.

In respect of the School Admission Register, the first court witness told the court that the petitioner was admitted into the school on the basis of verbal information regarding his date of birth. On the basis of the said statement, the Sessions Judge refused to believe the school certificate. In order to come to a decision, the trial court examined four witnesses.

During the instant hearing, the HC observed, "No parents would tell a false date of birth at the time of admission of his/her child in a school on an assumption that within a fixed period of time, his/her child would commit an offence and he/she will therefore, get the benefit of being a juvenile/child in conflict with the law."

The Court further noted that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides for a school certificate showing date of birth for determination of age of a child.

Therefore, the court opined that the learned Sessions Judge had "erroneously oriented himself and arrived at an incorrect finding. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside."

The HC also ruled, "The petitioner Md. Matab Uddin shall be considered as a juvenile/child in conflict with the law, below 18 years of age on 10th April, 2009. The learned Sessions Judge shall do accordingly."

The Criminal Revision Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Also Read: LP school students lead plantation drive on World Environment Day

Also Watch: