SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the applicant is the mother of the ravished girl Kr. Manisha aged about 13 -14 years. Kr. Manisha is alleged to have been raped by three persons namely; Sanjeeve Kishore and Vijay Pal. While Sanjeeve and Kishore were chargesheeted before: the Court of Competent Magistrate, Vijay Pal was sent to the Children Court as he was alleged to be below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. The applicant appears to have contested the age of Vijay Pal and in that behalf, she appears to have requested the Children Court to summon the age certificate from the institutions where Vijay Pal was alleged to have studied and also to get him medically examined for determination of his age by a Medical Board. The Children Court, however, declined to requisition the required certificate from the institutions and also to get Vijay Pal examined by a Board of Doctors for the determining his age. The learned Children Court took the view that the age of Vijay Pal as recorded in the record of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, was conclusive proof of his having born on 11.3.1996.

(2.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that since it was a case of heinous crime having been committed against an innocent girl by three youths and two of the culprits were facing their trial before the regular Court, the third one who was also major at the time of commission of the offence must have been tried by a Regular Court and in order to determine his majority, the learned trial Court must have conducted necessary enquiry as desired by the applicant into the actual age of the accused -Vijay Pal. It was further submitted that the date of birth as recorded in the School Register may be having some evidential value but the entry as made in the School record, can never be the conclusive proof of that fact and evidence in rebuttal thereof may always be led by a person who alleged to the contrary. It was therefore, submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be directed by this court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the evidence which the applicant wants to bring on the record regarding age of Vijay Pal should be allowed to be taken on record of the case and that the learned Children Court should get the accused examined for determination of his age by a Board of Doctors.

(3.) THE necessity of making a differential treatment to the Juvenile Officers, has been accepted in principally in Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reads as under: 27. Any offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the Court is under the age of sixteen years, may be tried by the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, or by any Court specially empowered under the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force providing for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of youthful offenders.