SUMIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGED in the instant revision petition is to order dated February 12, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby, an application moved by petitioner for declaring him juvenile and sending his case to Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul was dismissed.

(2.) WHILE assailing the impugned order dated February 12, 2015, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal proposition of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as rules framed thereunder. Impugned order is also against documentary evidence available on file. In fact, petitioner has placed on record his secondary examination certificate, in which, his date of birth has been clearly mentioned as January 01, 1998, which is conclusive of the fact that petitioner was juvenile on the day of alleged occurrence i.e. April 22, 2014. Hence, order of learned trial Court is liable to be set aside on this score alone and he deserves to be declared as juvenile.

(3.) THE preference is to be given to the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. In the present case, the matriculation certificate Ex.A6 is available on record, in which, the date of birth of the petitioner stood recorded as January 01, 1998. The other certificates or the evidence can only be taken into consideration in the absence of matriculation certificate and when matriculation certificate is available, the determination of age is to be made on the basis thereof. Though, at the initial stage i.e. at the time of admission of petitioner in Krishna Public School in 1st Class, the date of birth of petitioner was got recorded as August 15, 1996 but it was subsequently, got changed on the basis of an affidavit at the time of his re -admission in the same school in the year 2006 in 5th Class. The copy of an affidavit of Rakesh Kumar AW -2 has also been placed and proved on record; besides the testimony of Rakesh Kumar AW -2. But these facts have been ignored and disbelieved by learned trial Court without assigning any cogent reason. Thus, learned trial Court has erroneously concluded that petitioner is not a juvenile and is more than 18 years of age on the day of alleged occurrence. Impugned order being against evidence available on file as well as settled cannons of law is liable to be set aside and application filed by petitioner before learned trial Court declaring him juvenile deserves to be allowed.