Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No.338 of 2013 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION :
20. 02.2014 Vikram Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr. Rajendar Chhokar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
( Oral ) 1. Vikram Singh complainant has filed this revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against the order dated 15.1.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby it has been found that on the day of the alleged occurrence, Krishan (respondent No.2 herein) was juvenile in conflict with law, and was to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Panipat. Dass Narotam 2014.02.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No.338 of 2013 ( O&M ) -2- 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.
3. In the present case, an FIR for the offences under Sections 324, 307, 506, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered at Police Station Samalkha, against respondent No.2, his brother Sushil and one Ravinder, for causing injuries dangerous to life to Jasbir (brother of complainant Vikram Singh).
4. It was alleged by complainant Vikram Singh that on the day of occurrence, i.e. on 21.8.2011, at about 7 P.M., when he was working in his fields, accused Ravinder came to him and asked for his motor cycle, to which he refused, due to which accused Ravinder quarreled and gave beatings to the complainant. After about two and half hours, accused Ravinder along with his brother Sushil and respondent No.2 came to the house of the complainant, and threatened the complainant to teach him a lesson for not giving his motor cycle. It is further the case of the complainant that accused Sushil and Krishan (respondent No.2) caught hold of his brother Jasbir, and accused Ravinder gave knife blows on the left side of his chest and abdomen.
5. During investigation, respondent No.2 was found innocent and challan was filed against accused Ravinder and Sushil. Subsequently, during trial, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., moved by the complainant, he was summoned as an accused to face trial along with other two accused. Dass Narotam 2014.02.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No.338 of 2013 ( O&M ) -3- 6. On his appearance, respondent No.2 moved an application before the learned trial court to declare him as a juvenile in conflict with law, and should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, as his date of birth is 10.5.1995 and as such, on the day of the alleged occurrence, he was a juvenile. The said application was contested by the complainant taking the plea that respondent No.2 was not a juvenile, as his date of birth is 25.8.1990. The learned trial court provided opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. Ultimately, vide impugned order, the learned trial court found that the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 10.5.1995, therefore, on the day of the alleged occurrence, he was juvenile in conflict with law. The said finding has been recorded on the basis of the Secondary School Examination Certificate of respondent No.2 issued by the D.P.S. Geeta High School, Bhodwal Majri, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 10.5.1995. The trial court did not rely upon the entry made in the admission register of Government High School, Bhodwal Majri, pertaining to admission of respondent No.2 in class VI, produced by the complainant, as RW.1 Sanjiv Kumar, maths teacher of the said school, who was examined to prove the said entry, specifically stated that the said record was not prepared in his presence. The learned trial court has also relied upon the statement of AW.1 Maya Devi, mother of respondent No.2.
7. The above said order has been challenged in the present revision petition. Dass Narotam 2014.02.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No.338 of 2013 ( O&M ) -4- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality while not considering the date of birth of respondent No.2 mentioned in the record of the Government High School, Bhodwal Majri. According to him, the said record of a Government School should have been given more weightage, in comparison to the Secondary School Examination Certificate, issued by the D.P.S. Geeta High School, Bhodwal Majri, which is a private school. Learned counsel argued that record of the Government School, depicting the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 25.8.1990, is based upon the information given by his mother at the time of his admission in Ist Class.
9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the statement of AW1 Maya Devi, mother of respondent No.2. No such question was put to her in the cross- examination that while getting respondent No.2 admitted in Ist Class, her date of birth was mentioned as 25.8.1990. No document depicting `25.8.1990' to be the date of birth of respondent No.2 was put to her. She categorically stated that the date of birth of her son is 10.5.1995 and the said fact is being corroborated by the Secondary School Examination Certificate of respondent No.2, issued by the D.P.S. Geeta High School, Bhodwal Majri. Merely because she has stated that her son was earlier studying in Government High School, Bhodwal Majri does not mean that the date of birth recorded in the record of the said school is the correct date, particularly when no such specific question was put to her in the cross- Dass Narotam 2014.02.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revn. No.338 of 2013 ( O&M ) -5- examination. In our view, the learned trial court has rightly determined the age of respondent No.2, in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, while considering the material produced before it, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, and further while relying upon the Secondary School Examination Certificate of respondent No.2, which is primary document to be looked into, particularly with regard to determination of the date of birth of a person.
10. We have been informed that as far as other two accused are concerned, trial against them has been concluded and only accused Ravinder, who allegedly gave knife blows on the body of injured Jasbir, has been convicted, whereas co-accused Sushil, who along with respondent No.2 allegedly caught hold of injured Jasbir, has been acquitted of the charges.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
12. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 20, 2014 ( KULDIP SINGH ) ndj JUDGE Dass Narotam 2014.02.25 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document