"Questioning Juvenility: A Legal Battle Over Age Determination in Bihar"

 


Introduction

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the legal status of an accused as a juvenile in a criminal case. The petitioner, Archana Kumari, challenged the decision of the courts that declared her husband, Ranjan Kumar, a minor at the time of the alleged offense. The case raises important questions about the credibility of documents used to determine age under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Background of the Case

Archana Kumari married Ranjan Kumar on June 9, 2014. Soon after, she alleged that she was harassed, assaulted, and thrown out of her matrimonial home, with demands for a dowry of ₹5 lakh. Following this, an FIR was registered at Nawada Muffasil police station, naming five accused, including Ranjan Kumar.

During the trial, Ranjan Kumar claimed that he was a minor at the time of the incident. This plea led to the case being referred to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Nawada, which subsequently declared him a juvenile based on a provisional school certificate showing his date of birth as February 2, 1999.

Legal Proceedings

1. Challenge Before the Appellate Court

Archana Kumari challenged the JJB's decision before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Nawada, arguing that the certificate used to determine juvenility was provisional and lacked verification. However, the appellate court dismissed her appeal, stating that the JJB’s order was legally valid.

2. Criminal Revision Before the Patna High Court

Dissatisfied with the decisions of the JJB and the appellate court, Archana Kumari filed a criminal revision petition before the Patna High Court, contending:

  • Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act (2015) lists valid documents for determining juvenility, but the provisional school certificate does not qualify as one of them.
  • The authenticity of the certificate was never verified by the issuing authority.
  • The courts relied solely on the provisional certificate without seeking additional evidence.

Relying on previous judgments, she argued that an age determination must be based on officially recognized documents such as a school birth certificate, matriculation certificate, or municipal birth record.

The Court’s Analysis and Verdict

The Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, examined the case and found procedural lapses in the JJB’s ruling.

  • Misinterpretation of Section 94(2): The court clarified that a provisional certificate is not among the prescribed documents for age determination.
  • Failure to Verify Authenticity: The JJB accepted the certificate without confirming its validity from the Bihar School Examination Board.
  • Flawed Appellate Court Ruling: The appellate court overlooked these errors and upheld the JJB’s ruling without proper scrutiny.

Final Decision

The High Court quashed both the JJB’s and the appellate court’s decisions, ruling that the case be sent back for fresh consideration. The JJB was directed to re-evaluate the age determination process strictly as per Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Conclusion

This case highlights the critical role of due diligence in juvenile justice cases, particularly in verifying documents used to establish age. The ruling sets a precedent that courts must ensure authenticity and legality before granting juvenility status, as it has significant implications on criminal liability.

The Patna High Court’s decision safeguards the integrity of juvenile justice laws while ensuring that individuals do not misuse legal provisions to evade responsibility. The matter now rests with the JJB, which must conduct a fair and transparent inquiry to establish the correct age of the accused.

Click the Link Below to read the Judgement;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyM2MTEjMjAxOCMxI04=-Z0F1lWTGVAc=