GULAM NABI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for being treated him as a juvenile in connection with Sessions Case No. 45/2011 arising out of F.I.R. No. 257/2010, P.S. Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

(3.) Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the petitioner's specific contention before the trial Court was that he has never gone to any school. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner's father and mother - witnesses No. 1 and 2, specifically denied the fact that the petitioner had gone to any school. It is submitted that when the parents of the petitioner were examined on oath, at that time, no suggestion has been made to them that the petitioner ever went to Veer Mohalla School of which the certificate has been relied upon by the trial Court for holding him not to be a juvenile. It is submitted that unless and until the parents of the petitioner were confronted with the said fact in their cross-examination, the said certificate whereby the petitioner has been treated as major cannot be used against the petitioner. It is submitted that the witness No. 4 Saraswati during the enquiry had admitted that the school of which the certificate has been proved has merged in her school 5-6 years ago. It is also submitted that there is no witness who has stated that the petitioner was the person who had been admitted in Veer Mohalla School for which the entry in scholar register Ex.1 has been taken on record and has been utilised as a piece of evidence to hold that the petitioner is not a juvenile. Pointing out the document, it is submitted that there are cuttings in the scholar register Ex.1 and thus, there is no reliability of the said admission register for proving the age of the petitioner. It is submitted that because there is no reliable or admissible school entry on the record, the medical evidence has to be relied upon, as per which the petitioner was found to be between 18-19 years of age on 23.8.2011. It is submitted that the offence has taken place in Sept., 2010 and thus, on the consideration of the medical evidence context to the date of occurrence, the age of the petitioner comes to be below 18 years when the offence was committed.