LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

KULAI IBRAHIM @ IBRAHIM vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 3 July, 2014

Cites 4 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
Crl.A. No.-001308-001308 - 2014Official PDFBench Ranjana Prakash Desai, Madan LokurAdvocates K. PAARI VENDHAN | M. YOGESH KANNA
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9412 of 2013]
Kulai Ibrahim @ Ibrahim … Appellant
Vs.
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
B-1, Bazaar Police Station,
Coimbatore. … Respondent
O R D E R

question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly

constituted Medical Board arises only if the above-mentioned

documents are unavailable, this Court went on to further

observe that only in those cases, where documents

mentioned in Section 12(a) (i) to (iii) of the J.J. Act, 2000 are

found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the

Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for

medical report for age determination. Thus in cases where

documents mentioned in Section 12(a)(i) to (iii) of the J.J.

Act, 2000 are unavailable or where they are found to be

fabricated or manipulated, it is necessary to obtain medical

report for age determination of the accused. In this case the

documents are available but they are, according to the

police, fabricated or manipulated and therefore as per the

above observations of this Court if the fabrication is

confirmed, it is necessary to go for medical report for age

determination of the appellant. Delay cannot act as an

impediment in seeking medical report as Section 7-A of the

J.J. Act, 2000 gives right to an accused to raise the question

of juvenility at any point of time even after disposal of the JUDGMENT case. This has been confirmed in Ashwani Kumar.

Moreover, J.J. Act, 2000 is a beneficient legislation. If two

views are possible scales must tilt in favour of the view that

supports the claim of juvenility. While we acknowledge this

position in law there is a disquieting feature of this case

which cannot be ignored. We have already alluded to the

counter affidavit of Shri R. Srinivasalu, Inspector of Police. If

what is stated in that affidavit is true then the appellant and

his father are guilty of fraud of great magnitude. A case is

registered against the appellant’s father at the Ukkadam

Police Station under Section 467, 471 and 420 of the IPC.

Law will take its own course and the guilty will be adequately

punished if the case is proved against them. Since the case

is being investigated, we do not want to express any opinion

on this aspect. Till the allegations are finally adjudicated

upon and proved, we cannot take registration of the offence

against the appellant.

13. In the circumstances, we direct the police to complete

the investigation in respect of case registered against the

JUDGMENTappellant’s father (and the appellant, if any) within one

month. The charge-sheet, if any, be filed within 15 days

thereafter. After filing of the charge-sheet, the trial court

shall dispose of the case within two months. The case be

disposed of independently and in accordance with law as we

have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of that

case. The trial court shall forward its judgment to this Court

immediately.

14. List the criminal appeal after the trial court’s judgment

is received.