PRADEEP SEHRAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissing his petition filed against an order dated 21.12.2010 passed by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in a case against him under Section 363, 366,368, 376, 342, 343, 506 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt. vide FIR No. 399 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner allegedly committed offence on 07th November, 2006. He claimed to be juvenile on the day of commission of offence and moved application under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act) before JJB. Learned JJB on the question of age of the petitioner, examined 8 witnesses. THE petitioner herein also produced two witnesses of different schools. As per the certificate issued by Solanki Public School, the petitioner was admitted on 6.4.1994 in the first class on the basis of affidavit of his father. THE petitioner's date of birth was shown as 10.9.1988. This was so stated by CW-1, Administrative Incharge of that school. It is stated by father of the petitioner that the petitioner was withdrawn from Solanki Public School when he was studying in 7th class on account of some quarrel with the school. He stated that thereafter he was admitted in Rahul Public School. THEre is no record pertaining to this school. As per petitioner, he was admitted in 10th class privately in National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). This was so stated by CW6, Assistant Director of NIOS. Record of NIOS was stated to have been destroyed. He further stated that there was a computerized record showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 9.9.1989. He has stated that since the record qua petitioner was destroyed, he could not say as to what was the document submitted by the petitioner at the time of his admission in their school. He, however, stated that it may either be an affidavit or school leaving certificate which might have been submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission in their institution.

(3.) THE matter was taken in appeal to the Court of learned ASJ by the petitioner. THE learned ASJ vide the impugned order upheld the findings of learned JJB and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. THE said order passed by learned ASJ is assailed by the petitioner by way of instant petition.