Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2009)

Introduction 

This landmark judgment addresses the critical issue of age determination in juvenile justice cases and establishes essential procedural safeguards that must be followed by courts exercising revisional jurisdiction. 

The case arose from Criminal Appeal challenging the High Court of Jharkhand's order that declared the accused a juvenile without affording a hearing to the complainant. 

Facts 

• Rajesh Mahatha (accused/respondent No. 2) was apprehended for offences under Sections 304B and 306 IPC in relation to the death of his wife, based on a statement by the deceased's brother, Babloo Pasi (appellant). 
• When produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, the accused claimed to be a juvenile (under 18 years) and was sent to the Child Rehabilitation Centre, Dumka. 
• The accused failed to produce any evidence/certificate supporting his claim of being a juvenile when directed by the Magistrate on February 8, 2006. 
• The Juvenile Justice Board, Dumka, referred the accused to a Medical Board for age determination. The Medical Board's ossification test showed his age as 17-18 years. 
• The Board also considered a Voters List 2005 for Deoghar Constituency showing the accused's age as 20 years, along with his physical appearance, and concluded he was above 18 years and not a juvenile. 
• The accused challenged the Board's order through a revision petition under Section 53 of the JJ Act before the High Court of Jharkhand. 
• The High Court allowed the revision petition on December 21, 2006, and declared the accused a juvenile without issuing notice to or hearing the complainant (appellant). 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the High Court's order was vitiated for being passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/complainant, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? 
• Whether the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 53 of the JJ Act in reversing the Board's well-reasoned factual finding? 
• Whether the Juvenile Justice Board applied the correct parameters and followed due procedure for determining the age of the accused under Section 49 of the JJ Act and Rule 22 of the Jharkhand JJ Rules, 2003? 
• What is the evidentiary value of Medical Board opinions, Voters List entries, and other documents in age determination proceedings? 
• Whether a hyper-technical approach should be avoided while determining juvenility in borderline cases? 

Court's Observations 

• The Court held that the proviso to Section 53 of the JJ Act clearly mandates that the High Court cannot pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 
• The Court emphasized that Section 54(2) of the JJ Act requires compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 401(2) CrPC contemplates no prejudicial order without opportunity of hearing. 
• The Court reiterated the settled principle of audi alteram partem, stating that "no one shall be condemned unheard" and that "fair play in action" demands pre-decisional hearing before any adverse order.. 
• The Court observed that determination of age, particularly in borderline cases, is a complex exercise and the JJ Act does not lay down fixed norms for age determination. 
• The Court noted that Section 49 of the JJ Act merely provides that the Board must make due inquiry, take necessary evidence, and record a finding on age, making it a fact-finding exercise. 
• The Court clarified that while Rule 22(5) mandates obtaining Medical Board opinion in absence of birth/school certificates, such medical opinion is not conclusive proof but merely "an opinion" and "a useful guiding factor." 
• The Court held that it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula for age determination, which must be based on appreciation of all material on record. 
• The Court held that entries in Voters Lists, though public documents under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, have limited evidentiary value without evidence showing the material basis on which the entry was made (citing Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit). 
• The Court found that the Board had mechanically accepted the Voters List entry without appreciating its probative value and had failed to summon Medical Board members to record their statements. 
• The Court held that physical appearance alone cannot be a decisive factor in age determination. 
• The Court found the High Court's order unsustainable as it provided no indication of how Rule 22(5)(iv) was ignored by the Board and wrongly treated the Medical Board opinion as conclusive. 
• The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and the High Court erred in interfering with the Board's factual finding without pointing out material irregularity. 

Conclusion 

This is a landmark judgment laying down the correct procedure and parameters for determining the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile, emphasizing the importance of natural justice principles and the evidentiary value of various documents including medical opinions.