UMED SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 38 of Juvenile Justice Act read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad declaring respondent No.2 as a juvenile was affirmed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Respondent No.2 had moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad that he be declared a juvenile. In support of his plea, respondent No.2 produced on record admission form for matriculation examination, result sheet of matriculation examination and certificate of qualification. All these documents revealed that date of birth of respondent No.2 was 4.6.1991.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, was that respondent No.2, in fact, was not a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence. Reliance was placed on the ossification test conducted by a Civil Surgeon, Faridabad and as per the report of the Civil Surgeon, respondent No.2 was held to be 18-19 years old. Vide order dated 11.8.2008, the application submitted by respondent No.2 was allowed and he was declared juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal and moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence and examined a Chowkidar of the village, who proved the entry in the birth register.

(3.) It has been observed by the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment that the Chowkidar was an illiterate person and whenever somebody approached him for making entry in the register, he asked the same person to make the entry in the register himself. The Chowkidar further admitted that there is no record of birth entry of respondent No.2 with him. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below had not erred in placing reliance on the result sheet of matriculation examination. The said document has been rightly given preference to the ossification test and the certificate prepared by the Chowkidar. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P. 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 156 fails to advance the case of the petitioner. Vide said judgment, it was held that the admission register of the school, which was maintained in regular course of business and on the basis of which school leaving certificate was prepared could not be relied upon to prove the age. However, in the present case, the result sheet of matriculation examination is relied upon. The said document cannot be brushed aside. No ground for interference is made out.