SHUBHAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge impugned order dtd. 9/10/2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the application of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application before Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 16/4/2018 for declaring him juvenile as he was minor at the time of alleged occurrence i.e. 20/12/2017. The date of birth of the petitioner is 7/11/2000 as per certificate issued by the Principal, Manav Public School, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad as well as progress report of the school. Said application was opposed by the prosecution as well as by the complainant by way of filing reply, wherein, a preliminary objection was raised that the application was not maintainable. It was contended that the petitioner was more than 18 years of age at the time of incident and the correct documents were not relied upon. The entry with regard to date of birth in the school record was on the basis of an affidavit, which was not admissible under law. The petitioner was directed to adduce evidence and accordingly he examined his father as AW-1 and School Teacher-Ms. Deepti Sharma as AW-2 besides relying upon the documents Mark A, Mark B and EX. AW2/A to Ex. AW2/C. Ultimately the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dtd. 9/10/2018 on the ground that in Ex. AW2/A, in the copy of admission form, the name of mother of the petitioner was mentioned as Smt. Seema wife of Satish Kumar. RW1 Devender Singh ASI was also not cross-examined about his statement qua father's name i.e. Attar Singh of AW1-Satish Kumar in affidavit Ex. AW2/B, an adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner. It was also mentioned while dismissing the application of the petitioner that the prosecution had placed on record Mark B i.e. copy of Aadhar Card of AW-1-Satish Kumar, wherein, his father's name was mentioned as Ram Singh and not Attar Singh as mentioned in the affidavit Ex. AW2/B. The affidavit of father of the petitioner was not found to be correct and accordingly the application moved by the petitioner for treating him as juvenile was rejected. It was also held that in view of forged and fabricated documents tendered by AW-1 Satish Kumar in his evidence before the Court on behalf of applicant both AW-1 as well as applicant were liable to be prosecuted and SHO, Police Station concerned was directed to register a case against them under the relevant Sec. after due investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application of the petitioner has wrongly been dismissed and the same is contrary to mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner was juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence i.e. on 20/12/2017 being his date of birth as 7/11/2000 as per certificate issued by the Principal, Manav Public School, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad as well as progress report of the school. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had well proved his case by examining AW-1, who is his father and AW-2-Ms. Deepti Sharma, teacher of the school. AW-2 had also brought the record of the petitioner from the school, according, to which his date of birth was 7/11/2000 and names of his father and mother were also rightly mentioned as Satish and Saroj, respectively. Those documents were prepared by the school much earlier to the date of occurrence and the same were relied upon as Mark A, Mark B and Ex. AW2/A to AW-2/C.