STATE Vs. VINOD ALIAS PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the State seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge declared the accused respondent a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

(2.) BRIEFLY stating the facts of the present case, the respondant is accused in FIR bearing No. 439/09 registered under Sections 302/397/34 IPC and FIR No. 529/09. To prove his juvenility on the date of commission of the alleged offence i.e. on 30.10.2009, the accused respondent had filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, the copy of Scholars Register and Transfer Certificate Form issued by Smt. Chabbo Devi, Laghu Madhyamic Vidhyalaya, Budhiyapur, Pratapgarh, U.P. as Ex. AW1A which reflected the date of birth of the accused respondent as 16.11.1993. To prove the said school record, the accused produced AW1, Shri Prem Chand Pandey, the head master of Smt. Chabbo Devi, Laghu Madhyamic Vidhyalaya, Budhiyapur, Pratapgarh, U.P. who produced the original admission register of the school wherein the name of the accused was found registered at Sr. No. 1796 and his date of birth in the relevant column as 16.11.1993. AW 1 also deposed that the accused was admitted in the school on the basis of the affidavit of the father of the accused, namely Mr. Dharam Raj Pandey, reflecting the date of birth of the accused as 16.11.1993. (Placed on record as AW1/B)

(3.) ASSAILING the said order, Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP for the State submitted that the order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court is manifestly wrong, bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. He submitted that the learned trial court ignored the fact that during cross examination of AW1, he had admitted that the school was only a recognized school and that at the time of admission, the accused was looking 1 -2 years older and when he confirmed the date of birth of the accused, the father of the accused told that the date of birth given by him was correct.