Holding that a school leaving certificate is more sacrosanct than a birth certificate obtained from authorities after having been convicted, the Bombay high court rejected a plea made by a convict, claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of committing the serious offences — murder, robbery and kidnapping — and thus can't be held guilty.
Holding that a school leaving certificate is more sacrosanct than a birth certificate obtained from authorities after having been convicted, the Bombay high court rejected a plea made by a convict, claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of committing the serious offences — murder, robbery and kidnapping — and thus can't be held guilty.
What have the judges said?
A division bench of justices VK Tahilramani and IK Jain said, "It is found that Pavan Sharma was not a juvenile in conflict with law on the dates when the offence(s) took place, for which he has been tried and convicted... thus, no benefit can be given to him under the said act."
What was the convict's contention?
Sharma has been held guilty in three cases, and appeals challenging the conviction are pending in HC. During the pendency, Sharma moved an application, claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of the offences in 2005-06 and thus should be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. He also submitted a birth certificate, which showed his date of birth as May 10, 1988.
How was his claim proved untrue?
The HC referred the claim for inquiry to the Pune sessions court, which, in its report, refuted it. While the police placed on record Sharma's school certificates, which showed his date of birth as June 7, 1987, even an ossification test conducted opined that he was between the ages of 23 and 30 at the time of the crime.
What did the court do then?
Relying on his school records, which showed that he was 18 at the time of the offences, the court bypassed the ossification test report, saying medical opinion will not prevail over the certificate issued by the school.
The court also considered the rules framed by the state government under the Juvenile Justice Act known as the Maharashtra Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules. As per the rules, the first document that should be considered to ascertain an accused or convict's age is certificate/s from school, after which come birth certificate and medical opinion. As the first document was available in this case, the court held it to be appropriate and rejected Sharma's plea.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}