VIJAY @ VIJENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for quashing of the summoning order dated 24.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 15.7.2009 and order of sentence dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, in FIR No.194 dated 30.6.2000 under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 452 read with Section 149 IPC registered at Police Station Ganaur, has been dismissed.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, an application dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure P2) was filed for declaring the petitioner-Vijay @ Vijender a juvenile as his date of birth was 18.4.1985 and on the date of occurrence i.e. 30.6.2000 he was below 18 years of age. The application disclosed that Vijay Singh was also known by the name of Vijender Singh, therefore, a prayer for sending his case to Juvenile Board was made. Petitioner examined his father Siri Chand as AW2, Smt. Jiwani Devi, Headmistress, Govt. Primary School Chirasmi District Sonipat as AW-1 who produced the record of the Govt. Primary School Chirasmi, Smt. Veena Arora, Headmistress Shri Durga Vidhya Mandir, Ganaur, as AW3 who proved the certificate of date of birth of the petitioner (Ex.A2), Matriculation Certificate (Ex.A4) and Senior Secondary Examination Certificate (Ex.A5), Middle Examination Certificate (Ex-A6) and Domicile Certificate (Ex.A7). ASI Bali Ram appeared as RW-1 and stated nonavailability of Certificate (Ex.R-1) and copy of Ration Card (Ex.R2). The Sessions Judge after going through the evidence led by the parties came to a conclusion that documents Ex.A1 to A7 did not connect with the petitioner Vijay Singh and during the trial no plea was taken by Vijender Singh that he was also known by the name of Vijay Singh. The application was dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Sullar, counsel for the petitioner, has stated that vide order dated 19.5.2011 a direction was given by this Court to DSP, Ganaur, to inquire and submit his report whether the appellant/convict Vijender and Vijay is one and the same person and the documents Ex.A1 to A7 are of the same person.