VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused allegedly having committed rape on the petitioner's daughter, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar, whereby the learned Board has declared the petitioner to be a minor; the petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 22.09.2008 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 11.02.2008, the petitioner had lodged a report at Police Station Tijara wherein he had claimed that around 1:00 p.m. while his daughter, Jyoti, was playing in the house, Nawal Singh (respondent No.2, before this Court) came to his house and dragged his daughter into the mustard fields. There he allegedly ravished his daughter. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR was chalked out for offence under Section 376 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar. Thus, the determination of the age of respondent No.2 became a crucial issue. In order to decide the issue four witnesses were examined and few documents were considered by the Board. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 22.09.2008, the learned Board concluded that Nawal Singh was, in fact, minor on the date of the incident. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 15.06.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 22.9.2008. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, according to Om Prakash (A.W.I), in the school documents, admission form (Ex.1 A), the age of the accused is recorded as 0206.1989 and in the S.R. Register (Ex.2A) also the date of birth of the accused is shown as 02.06.1989. Thus, according to the learned counsel, on the date of the incident, Nawal Singh was eighteen years, eight months, and nine days old. Hence, he was an adult. Secondly, according to Dr. Ravi Mathur (A.W.2), he had examined Nawal Singh for determination of his age. According to him, Nawal Singh was nineteen years old. Thus, according to the learned counsel, both the school documents as well as the medical evidence clearly points to the fact that on the date of incident, Nawal Singh was an adult. Relying upon the cases of Manak Chand vs. State of Raj., 2001 4 RajLW 547 and Mehmood Khan vs. State through P.P., 2002 3 RajLW 1810, the learned counsel has contended that in case there are two school certificates, then the certificate supported by the opinion of the medical board should be accepted. Lastly, once Nawal Singh was caught in a criminal case another set of school documents, namely admission form (Ex.3A) and S.R. Register (Ex.4A) were prepared. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in relying on the admission form (Ex.3A) and on the S.R. Register (Ex.4A) in order to conclude that the petitioner was minor on the date of the incident.