The Hindu : Juvenile Court declines to try youth

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, May 02, 2003

Southern States

Southern States - Kerala-Thiruvananthapuram

Juvenile Court declines to try youth

By Our Staff Reporter

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM May 1. The Juvenile Court here has judged that a youth arrested by the Museum Police in 2001 December on various charges, including attempted murder, was above the age of 18 and hence could not be tried for his alleged offences at the Juvenile Court.

The arrest of the youth, Kapil Sukeshan, had become controversial after his mother moved the magistrate court stating that he was aged less than 18 years and should be tried before the Juvenile Court.

The allegation was that the Museum Police had not taken cognisance of Sukeshan's age and had "wrongly'' produced him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-III (Thiruvananthapuram) on charges punishable under Secs. 307, 452, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The controversy had figured prominently in the media after the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) member, Balaraman, interviewed Kapil Sukeshan while he was under judicial remand at the Central Prison, Poojappura in January 2002.

The mother of the accused had filed an affidavit before the JFMC-III stating that her son was below 18. A passport issued in favour of Sukeshan was produced before the magistrate as evidence following which the court ruled that Sukesan was to be tried by the Juvenile Court.

On his production before the Juvenile Court, the prosecution argued that Sukeshan was above the age of 18. In view of the opposing contentions, the court conducted an enquiry into the age of Kapil.

The Health Inspector attached to the Birth and Death Section of the Municipal Corporation office was ordered to produce the Birth Register containing the Serial No: 5473/82 relating to the birth records of Sukesan. He gave evidence that the serial number related to the birth of a male child to one Padmini of Sasibhavan Peroorkada at the Women & Children Hospital, Thycaud, on October 24, 1982.

The court also considered the date of birth given by Sukeshan in the application for issuance of photo identity card for the post of casual loader in the Indian Airlines. The details given in the application was recorded in the photo identity card register maintained by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in charge of airport security. In the register, the age of Sukeshan was given as October 24, 1982.

The Nursing Assistant at the W & C Hospital in Thycaud, who was examined by the prosecution, produced the register in which the births that occurred at the hospital on October 24, 1982 was recorded. In the register, an entry stated that a male child was born to Padmini (19), c/o Sukeshan, Sasibhavan, Peroorkada.

Sukeshan produced the duplicate of the original SSLC book, in which his date of birth was seen entered as October 24, 1984. The entries in his passport and school TC were seen as October 24, 1984.

The prosecution argued that the corporation and hospital birth registers were the main documents to be considered to determine a person's age. The defence argued that a mere entry in the register of birth and death without any statement as to the identity of the person is not sufficient to prove the age of the particular person.

The court observed that a High Court decision in a similar case held that the entries in the corporation and hospital birth registers were to be preferred to the entries in the admission register maintained in the school.

The court noted that entries in the SSLC book are made on the basis of details furnished by parents without any reference to documents available at the corporation office or concerned hospital. Hence, the birth register at the corporation office and that at the hospital are to be preferred to the entries in the SSLC book.

The court also noted the failure of Sukeshan to submit himself for radiological examination for determining his age despite a court direction. Hence, the court concluded that the actual date of birth of the accused was October 24, 1982 and not October 24, 1984 as argued by the defence.

The Juvenile court ruled that Sukeshan was a major at the time of commission of the alleged offences. He has been directed to appear before the JFMC_III for further proceeding in the case.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

Stories in this Section

Century-old South Palace languishing

Juvenile Court declines to try youth

Computerised PUC deferred

Vallakkadavu Boathouse: Phase I renovation soon

IMA to launch SARS sensitising programme

Call to protect wetlands, migratory birds