KAPIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that date of birth of the petitioner -accused is 07.09.1993 as mentioned in Secondary Matriculation Certificate (Annexure P -2), issued by Board of School Education Haryana. Date of occurrence is 18.07.2010, therefore, petitioner was juvenile on the date of occurrence and even today he is juvenile. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, reported in : 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 89, has argued that offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC does not find place under sub -section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner was wrongly declared proclaimed offender. He has further argued that on the basis of the same evidence other co -accused have already been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment (Annexure P -3). Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner shall surrender/appear before the trial court on 20.01.2012 and shall move an application stating date of birth of the accused -petitioner to declare him juvenile as per Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (in short 'the Rules'). Learned counsel has further stated that petitioner has no past criminal history, therefore, he should be enlarged on bail. Notice of motion.

(2.) MR . Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that if the plea of juvenility is taken before any court at any stage, court is bound to hold inquiry as per Rule 12 of the Rules. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the parties that matriculation certificate shall be given weightage while determining the age of juvenile as per Rule 12(3)(a)(i) of the Rules.