MANJYOTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition dated 2-11-2001 under S. 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the order dated 6-4-1998, passed by the Juvenile Court, copy Annexure P-2 and also seeking the quashment of the order dated 23-11-1998, copy Annexure P-3, passed by the Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner and up-holding the order dated 6-4-1998 passed by the learned Juvenile Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted before me that in view of the birth certificate Ex. A1, the accused-petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence and as such he should have been declared as a juvenile.

(3.) However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 23-4-1997, for which FIR No. 51 dated 24-4-1997 under S. 302, IPC was registered in Police Station East, Chandigarh. It was much after the commission of the crime that Joginder Lal (Pal) filed an application for making an entry in the birth register regarding the birth of his son Manjyoti (accused-petitioner), alleging therein that his son Manjyoti was born on 2-10-1981. After obtaining the report from the Patwari and the Kanungo, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, passed the orders on 13-11-1997 for making an entry in the birth register about the birth of accused-petitioner Manjyoti having taken place on 2-10-1981. It was on the basis of this birth entry that the accused-petitioner was seeking a verdict from the Juvenile Court that in fact he was juvenile on the date of occurrence. However, as referred to above, the learned Junevile court, vide order dated 6-4-1998, copy annexure P-2 did not place any reliance on the said birth entry and after considering the other material available on the record including the ossification test came to the conclusion that accused-petitioner Manjyoti was not a Juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence. The appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the said order of the Juvenile Court, was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23-11-1998, copy Annexure P-3. The learned Sessions Judge also did not place any reliance on the birth entry of the accused-petitioner, which had come into existence much after the commission of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge also placed reliance on other material on the record, including ossification test and came to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner was not a juvenile and accordingly, the order of the Juvenile Court was up-held and the appeal was dismissed.