ARNIT DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 574/98 for the offence under Section -302 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of occurrence is 5 -9 -1998. The petitioner claims to be juvenile on the date of occurrence and as such he is entitled to the benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act. The claim of the petitioner was disputed by the opposite party and as such an enquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act was conducted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Juvenile Court and it came to a conclusion that the petitioner was above 16 years of age on the date of occurrence and he cannot be tried by Juvenile Court as claimed by the petitioner vide order dated 10 -9 -1999. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5 -10 -1999 by the Sessions Judge, Patna and the finding of the Juvenile Court was affirmed. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two orders of the Juvenile Court and the Appellate Court in this revision application.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner was that he was born on 18 -9 -1992 in Central Calcutta Nursing Home, Calcutta and as such his age was 13 days less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. In support of his contention, the petitioner examined three witnesses, AW 1 Sunita Das, mother of the petitioner. AW 3Arun Kumar Das, father of the petitioner. AW 2 -R. Braunza/Office Assistant, Don Bosco Academy and also produced documents, i.e. Ext. 1, a certificate of ICSE, New Delhi, Ext. 1 I A. marks obtained in ICSE Examination, New Delhi. .Ext. 2 School register of Don Bosco Academy, Digha, Patna. Ext. 3 admission form filled up by office of Don Bosco Academy. Ext. 4 school leaving certificate of Don Bosco Academy, Patna. Ext. 5 birth certificate issued by Central Calcutta Nursing Home, Calcutta. Exts, 6 and 61 A, the affidavits sworn by the father and the mother of the petitioner respectively. On the other hand, opposite party examined two witnesses, namely, Dr. Devi Dutta Gupta, PW1. Head of the Department of Radiology and Md. Wasir Alam, PW 2, Head of the Department, Orthopaedic, P.M.C.H., Patna. They were members of the Medical Board constituted for ascertaining the age under the order of Juvenile -Court. Opposite party also brought on record the original X -ray plate, material Ext. 6, original X -ray plate of wrist joint of the petitioner, material Ext. l/A and original X -ray plate of Pelvis, material Ext. 1/B, Radiological report, Ext. A, report of Medical Board regarding determination of age, Ext. A/l. The Juvenile Court considered the evidence on record and also the law and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a Juvenile and as such his claim for separate trial by Juvenile Court was rejected. The finding of the Juvenile Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court giving reason for the same. Thus, revision petition has been filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P.1, wherein it has been held that school leaving certificate cannot be rejected if no material has been brought on record throwing doubt on the entry in the school certificate. The law laid down by the Apex Court is not in dispute but in the instant case, it is evident that Ext. 5, the birth certificate itself was doubted by the Courts below for reason stated above. The date of birth in the school leaving certificate, Exts. 1 to 4 is based on the said documents. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no reasonable material throwing doubt on the entries in the school certificates. Thus in my view the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner.