Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court recently delivered a crucial judgment in a case that revolved around the claim of juvenility by the accused in a fatal road accident that occurred in 1996. The petitioner, whose son was killed in the accident, had challenged the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Samastipur, which had acquitted the accused after accepting his claim of being a juvenile at the time of the incident.
The incident occurred on 24.05.1996 when a tractor allegedly driven by the opposite party (accused) hit and killed the petitioner’s son. During the trial of the criminal case, the accused claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the accident. His case was referred to the JJB for an inquiry into this claim.
The JJB accepted the accused’s assertion of juvenility and acquitted him due to lack of evidence. However, the High Court found serious flaws in the way the JJB handled the case. The petitioner presented a school certificate and a Headmaster’s certification which clearly showed that the accused was born on 05.06.1977, making him over 18 at the time of the incident. This meant he could not legally be treated as a juvenile.
Despite this, the JJB had relied solely on a different certificate from the Bihar School Examination Board, which claimed his date of birth as 22.01.1980. The JJB accepted this certificate as genuine merely based on a lawyer’s attestation, without verification from the issuing authority — which the High Court found highly irregular.
Additionally, the High Court noted that the petitioner, being the father of the deceased, had the right to be heard and present evidence in the JJB inquiry. Unfortunately, no notice was served to him, and he was excluded from participating in the proceedings. This amounted to a violation of natural justice.
The court also criticized the prosecution for failing to present witnesses and held that any failure on the part of state authorities should not prejudice the victim’s family.
Considering these irregularities, the High Court quashed the JJB’s order and directed a fresh inquiry into the juvenility claim. This time, the petitioner is to be given an opportunity to present his evidence, and the JJB must consider all documents before deciding the matter afresh.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that juvenility claims must be rigorously verified, especially in cases involving serious offences like culpable homicide. It also emphasizes that victims’ families have a right to participate in such inquiries and that failure to issue notice or consider credible documents can render proceedings invalid.
By mandating a fresh inquiry, the court upholds both procedural fairness and substantive justice. It serves as a reminder to Juvenile Justice Boards and prosecutors that casual acceptance of questionable documents cannot override well-substantiated records. This ensures that the legal shield of the Juvenile Justice Act is not misused.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Was the JJB right in accepting the accused’s claim of juvenility?
- No. The Board ignored valid documents like a school register showing an earlier date of birth.
- Was the petitioner entitled to participate in the JJB inquiry?
- Yes. As the victim’s father, he had the right to be heard and present evidence.
- Can the JJB accept a certificate based only on a lawyer’s attestation?
- No. Only the issuing institution can verify a certificate’s authenticity.
- What is the consequence of these errors?
- The High Court set aside the JJB’s order and ordered a fresh inquiry.
Case Title
Suresh Rai vs. The State of Bihar and Another
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2018
(Arising out of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1375 of 2017
related to Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 60 of 1996)
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 91
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Ramesh Prasad Singh, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Ravi Shankar — For the Petitioner
- Mr. Md. Arif, APP — For the State
- Mr. Laxmendra Kumar Yadav — For Opposite Party No. 2
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyMzOCMyMDE4IzEjTg==-b4yQSjLbvUs=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
