TAMANNA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that respondent No. 2 Sandeep, an accused in a case of rape, was born on 11.09.1995 as per the birth certificate issued by Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Sonepat whereas the respondent No. 2 claims that he was born on 11.10.1997 as per the matriculation certificate Ex. R -2 proved by a Clerk of Sir Chhotu Ram Modern Senior Secondary School, Rattangarh Majra and the Principal of Oasis Modern High School, Bhatgaon, Sonepat.

(2.) AS per Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, procedure has been prescribed for determining the age. The evidence for the aforesaid purpose can be obtained in the shape of:

(3.) THE short question which is required to be determined in the present case is whether the sequence of the evidence mentioned in Rule 11 of Haryana Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2009 and Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, mentioned hereinabove, would be given priority for determining the age of an accused or it is the birth certificate which has to be given priority in view of admissibility of the same as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.