The Kerala High Court has recently observed that the Aadhaar card is not recognised by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as a proof of date of birth of an accused.
The court noted that if there is a certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination Board concerned that specifies the date of birth, the said document alone is acceptable as proof of age of the accused under section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act, 2015, who claims to be a child in conflict with the law.
“However, if such a document is not available, then the document specified in section 94(2)(ii) can be accepted as proof of age. If the above-referred documents are not available, resort can be made to the test contemplated under section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act of 2015,” the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas added.
The court was looking at the bail plea moved by a boy accused of committing rape on a 13 years old girl after kidnapping her from her mother’s custody.
The petitioner contended that since the accused was only 16 years old, he was liable to treated as a child in conflict with the law under the JJ Act and could not have even been arrested.
The petitioner’s counsel had submitted that as per petitioner’s Aadhaar card, his date of birth was January 2, 2006, therefore, he was a child in conflict with the law.
He further submitted that the date of birth certificate issued by the Department of Health Services, State of Assam, also showed petitioner’s date of birth as that on the Aadhaar.
Meanwhile, the Public Prosecutor asserted that the dispute on petitioner’s age was without any basis as the investigating officer had obtained the transfer certificate issued by the school specifying his date of birth as February 13, 2003, hence, he was 19 years old.
He also apprised the court that it was only after noticing the age of the accused as 19 years, the investigating officer had arrested him.
The court found that the petitioner’s counsel had laid emphasis on the birth certificate issued by the Government Health Department of Assam, however, it could not be taken into reckoning for the purpose of determining the age of a child in view of the statutory mandate of Section 94 of the JJ Act of 2015.
Therefore, the court held that the age of the petitioner was prima facie above 18, therefore, the investigating officer was justified in treating the petitioner as an adult.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment