VINOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-2010, in Case No. 25/2010, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cases, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner for declaring him as juvenile, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that with regard to an incident of 13-2-2010, a FIR No. 101/2010, for the offences under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC, and Section 3 (1) (xi) SC/ST (PA) Act was registered against the Petitioner at Police Station Ranoli. The Petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Judge for determination of his age, as he claimed that on the date of occurrence, he was merely 16 years, 11 months, 10 days old. In order to buttress his contention he has examined four witnesses: Vimla Devi (C.W.1), his mother, Shiv Singh (C.W.2), his father, Bhagwan Singh, (C.W.3), the Headmaster of the school, where allegedly the Petitioner studied till first class, and Dr. Hardev Singh (C.W.4). He has also submitted a copy of the Scholar Register to prove the fact that his date of birth was recorded as 20-3-1993. However, after going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 17-8-2010, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application, and concluded that the Petitioner, in fact, was 19 years old, on the date of occurrence. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Rules (for short 'the Rules'), duly prescribes the procedure to be followed for determination of the age. According to the said rule, the Court or the Board is required to obtain the date of birth from the certificate issued by the school, where the juvenile first studied. It is only in absence of the school certificate that the Court or the Board is permitted to seek medical opinion with regard to the age of the offender. According to the learned Counsel, the school record is relevant under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the scholar register was not only produced as documentary evidence, but was also proven by Bhagwan Singh (C.W.3). Therefore, it was conclusive proof to prove the date of birth of the Petitioner as 20-3-1993. Further, even if the medical evidence were to be taken as true, it is subject to a variation of one year. The incident occurred on 13-2- 2010, and the medical examination was conducted on 27-7-2010. Thus, according to medical evidence also the Petitioner was less than 18 years on the date of occurrence. Hence, the Petitioner was a minor on the date of the occurrence. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in declaring the Petitioner as an adult.