Mumbai: If an accused claims before a court
that he is a minor, then the court should ascertain his age
immediately, the Bombay High Court has held.
The order assumes significance as a person, if proved to
be under 18 years of age at the time of the crime, then his
trial could not be conducted by an ordinary court, but only by
the Juvenile Justice Board.
The court gave the order while hearing the case of Rafiq
Ahmed, who was charged with murder and rioting, and arrested
in May 2008. He claimed before the magistrate at Malegaon in
Nashik district that he was a minor when the alleged crime
took place, so he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice
Board.
He relied on his birth certificate to substantiate his
claim. But prosecution challenged his claim, saying his birth
certificate was not genuine. It was also pointed out that in
his bail application, he had stated his age as 19 years.
The magistrate, after referring the prosecution`s
argument, rejected his bail plea, saying that "issue (of age)
can be resolved only if he provides sufficient evidence during
the trial."
The accused filed an appeal in the High Court against the
ruling. His lawyer pointed out that as per the Juvenile Act,
whenever the court thinks the accused is a minor, or accused
claims to be a minor, the court must ascertain his/her age.
The High Court upheld the arguement and sent back the
case to magistrate, directing the lower court to ascertain the
age first, before proceeding with the trial.
Justice S A Bobde held, "this law (Juvenile Justice Act)
has been enacted, in discharge of the primary responsibility
of the state for ensuring that all the needs of the children
are met and their basic rights are fully protected..."
If the magistrate did not believe the birth certificate,
he "ought to have sought the opinion of medical board" to find
out Rafiq`s age, Justice Bobde said in his order.
Under the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile accused cannot
be awarded a death sentence or a life sentence.
Bureau Report
