SANTENU MITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.

(2.) This appeal is by a young man, Santenu Mitra who faces a trial under Section 302, IPC before the Court of Session. When produced before the Court, he raised the plea that he was a child on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 19-2-88, and thus was entitled to the protection of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. His plea did not find favour with the Court of Session which led him to approach the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 922 of 1988. Orders were passed directing the Magistrate to hold an inquiry under Section 8 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, in order to ascertain as to whether the appellant was below 16 years of age on the date of the incident (i.e. 19-2-88).

(3.) The learned Magistrate received evidence and examined some witnesses produced by either side. It was maintained by the prosecution that the date of birth of the appellant was 19-11-71 and hence he was over 16 years of age on the date of incident. On the other hand, the plea of the appellant was that his date of birth was 19-11-72 and was thus below 16 years of age. The appellant strongly relied upon an entry made in the Register of Births and Deaths (Ex. 3) and the supportive evidence of a clerk of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation who had brought such register to the Court. The Court observed that even though the date of birth of the appellant as recorded in the register was 19-11-72, since the entry was made some time between 14-8-78 and 8-11-78 it was not contemporaneous and thus not reliable. On that premise, other evidence of the appellant disclosing his date of birth likewise mentioned in his LIC policy and Matriculate certificate were also rejected. On the other hand, evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the application form filled by the father of the appellant at the time of later's admission in the school was held to predominate and thus the verdict on the question of age went against the appellant. The High Court on being approached again in revision rejected the plea of the appellant.