HARPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition is directed against order dated 5th May, 2009 of the Sessions Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter described as the trial Court)' by which the claim of the petitioner of his being declared juvenile in the criminal proceedings which he is facing was declined.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is erroneous and that the certificate issued by the school authorities has been ignored in preference to the one which could not have been considered at all as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Childern) Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act') and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, the Rules'). It is her contention that the petitioner was born on 15th August. 1991 and, therefore, he was a minor on the date of occurrence which took place on 15th June, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is on record a certificate issued by the school authorities which recorded his date of birth as 15th August, 1991. That certificate is Annexure A1 and was duly proved by Shri Krishan Kumar, Chairman, Summerhill Convent School, Bathinda, who had appeared as AW2. According to learned counsel, this witness had also brought the admission from and proved a photocopy of the relevant entry, i.e. certificate, Annexure Al. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the statement of AW3 Smt. Saroj Chopra, Principal, Sumerhill Convent School, Bathinda. who stated that writting, Annexure A3 was issued by her. She contended that in view of this overwhelming evidence, the material, i.e. the date of birth recorded in the insurance policy (Exhibit R1) which reflected the date of birth of the petitioner as 2nd October, 1987, could not have been relied upon by the trial Court to discard his claim. Her contention is that this entry could not have been given preference over the school certificate. Besides this material, the other material which has been relied upon by the trial Court is the entry contained in the register of the Village Chowkidar, which is on record as Mark -A and which shows that third son was born to the father of the petitioner on 3rd February, 1987, whereas Exhibit R1 showed the date of birth of the petitioner as 2nd October, 1987 as per school record which was submitted by him at the time of getting admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that both these materials were unsubstantiated and were never proved in accordance with law. The insurance policy could not have established the date of birth and could not have been preferred over and above the school certificate, and besides, the other record was not proved in accordance with law.

(3.) TO support her contentions/submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Ram versus State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 878.