GUDDU ALIAS GUCHHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-bailable warrants for arrest of the appellant have not been executed, as per the status report filed. At this stage, Ms. Inderjit Sidhu, learned amicus curiae has drawn our attention to paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment dated 10th November, 1998, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-

(2.) We have examined the trial court record. The appellant Guddu was arrested on 12th June, 1993. The then Investigating Officer Baldev Singh, police station Seema Puri moved an application dated 13th September, 1993 in the Court of Mr. S.S. Handa, Metropolitan Magistrate stating, inter alia, that Guddu had disclosed his age as 18 years, but did not have any certificate as to his age. Request was made that bony x-ray of Guddu should be undertaken to ascertain his age. On the said application itself, the Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order dated: 13th September, 1993 observing "Allowed. Bony X Ray be undertaken today itself". Consequent thereto, Guddu was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. In the MLC dated 13th September, 1993, which is available in the record of the trial court, age of Guddu has been given as 16 years. This is probably the age which was stated or disclosed by Guddu. The MLC records that Guddu had been produced for bony x-ray to determine his age. The age determination report is available in the trial court record and mentions that skeleton survey of the bone age was undertaken. On the back side of the said report, it is mentioned that bony age of the patient was above _______ but less than _____ years. The ___ portions have been over-written and scored off, but the word "eighteen" is clearly visible and can be read, though the word "sixteen" is also visible in the portion "less than _________ years". Both the words "eighteen" and "sixteen" have been scored off. Below this, it is recorded that bone age of the patient was above sixteen years but less than eighteen years. Thus, as per the bony x-ray, the age of the appellant Guddu was less than eighteen years as on 13th September, 1993.

(3.) The date of occurrence in the present case is 19th May, 1993, which is about four months prior to the date on which the aforesaid opinion was given by the doctor.