SHEHZAD Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby his contention that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence has been rejected.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that, as per the school certificates, his date of birth is 15.05.1989. The date of incident is 26.04.2005 which would clearly make him a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) inasmuch as the word "juvenile" has been defined in Section 2(k) as a person who has not completed the 18th year of age.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State. The impugned order reveals that the Principal of Phool Public Junior High School at Muzaffarnagar, U.P. whereby the petitioner was studying appeared in the witness box and testified that the petitioner (Shehzad) was admitted in the said school on 01.07.2000 in the sixth standard. His date of birth was entered as 15.05.1989 on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate which he had produced from SSM Jolly School wherein this date of birth was indicated. The same was recorded in the school register. The School Leaving Certificate of SSM Jolly School was also proved inasmuch as one Safiq Ahmed had brought the admission record of the present petitioner pertaining to the said SSM Jolly School, Muzaffarnagar, UP. However, there was no birth certificate available on record. An ossification report was also obtained from the doctor who gave the opinion that the petitioner could be between 20-22 years of age. Of course, this radiological examination was done on 20.09.2005 which is a further 5 months away from the date of occurrence. Even if the advantage of plus - minus two years is given, as is the usual practice, then the age of the petitioner on 29.9.2005 would be, on the lower side, around 18 years. Since the incident took place sometime in April, 2005, it would be apparent that the age of the petitioner would be less then 18 years and, he would, therefore, fall within the definition of the word "Juvenile" as appearing in the said Act.