Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Medical Board Examination to Determine Accused’s Age, Holds Birth and School Certificates Found False

Case Name: Arjun Paswan v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: Crl. Revn No. 2970 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the order of the Special Court, Ludhiana, which had rejected the petitioner’s plea for being declared a juvenile, and directed that his age be determined by a Medical Board. Justice Ritu Bahri held that when both the birth certificate and school transfer certificate are found to be fabricated, the only valid course under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is to seek medical opinion for determining age. The Court noted that false documents could not form the basis for a declaration of juvenility and emphasized that authenticity and verification of such records are essential before extending statutory protection under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Summary: The petitioner, Arjun Paswan, was facing trial under Sections 18, 61, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sought to be declared a juvenile on the ground that his date of birth was May 10, 1997, as per his certificate. The FIR had been registered on March 15, 2013, making him under 18 at the time of the offence. He produced his father as a witness and submitted a birth certificate, transfer certificate, and ration card in support of his claim. However, during verification, the police reported that the school certificate was not genuine and that the corresponding entry in the school register pertained to a different person. The date of birth certificate was also found to have been issued in 2013 upon an application by his mother, casting doubt on its authenticity. The Special Court, Ludhiana, rejected the application, holding that no reliable proof of age had been provided.

Justice Ritu Bahri observed that both the birth and transfer certificates were proven false, and therefore, the process mandated under Rule 12(3)(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 had to be followed — namely, that in the absence of genuine documentary proof, the age must be determined through medical examination. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anil Agarwala v. State of West Bengal (2012) 9 SCC 768, emphasizing that when a claim of juvenility is raised, the trial court must conduct an inquiry and, if satisfied that the accused was a minor at the time of offence, refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated August 4, 2014, and directed the Special Court, Ludhiana, to refer the petitioner to a duly constituted Medical Board for age determination. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order thereafter in accordance with law.